Provide an API for validating URI Templates #33

Activity

1. sigmavirus24 commented on Jun 24, 2017

   

   sigmavirus24

   on Jun 24, 2017

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Hi @Julian! Sorry for the delay. I love jsonschema and would love to be able to provide something useful for it. I don't think there's anything in RFC 6570 for validating a URI Template, but if we can come up with some ideas for a first pass at validation, I'd be happy to keep up with reasonable requests for expansion. That said, I may opt for functionality like what exists in rfc3986 for validation. There, we build a Validator object, tell it what we want it to validate and then pass in a URIReference object. I'm thinking we'd do the same here. Thoughts?
2. sigmavirus24 commented on Jun 24, 2017

   

   sigmavirus24

   on Jun 24, 2017

   Collaborator

   More actions

   Also, could you expand on

   E.g., http://example.com/dictionary/{term:1}/{term is not a valid URI Template seemingly, but I cannot see an API that complains about that -- uritemplate.URITemplate will happily truncate the end part there and consider that a template with just one field.

   Here's my own experimentation with this:

   >>> uritemplate.URITemplate('http://example.com/dictionary/{term:1}/{term')
   URITemplate("http://example.com/dictionary/{term:1}/{term")
   >>> u = _
   >>> u.variables
   [URIVariable(term:1)]
   >>> u.expand(term=['foo', 'bar', 'bogus'])
   'http://example.com/dictionary/foo,bar,bogus/{term'

   {term is a valid portion of a URL. I don't know if we'd really want to mark that as an invalid Template. It's entirely possible that {term is an actual part of the URL. =/
3. Julian commented on Jun 25, 2017

   

   Julian

   on Jun 25, 2017

   Author

   More actions

   Hullo! No worries.

   Interesting, sorry, not sure how I made that mistake (about truncation). Does look like you're right certainly :).

   So I am certainly no expert on RFC 6570 -- I did skim it just now and it does seem like from that 2 minute skim that it seems to be saying things like "when you're trying to expand stuff, if you can't, you return the thing unchanged, and then there's no guarantee that what you get back is a valid URI reference".

   So I'm getting a sense that what a "valid" URI template might mean is one that when you expand it ends up expanding into an invalid URI reference according to RFC 3986? In which case maybe I wouldn't actually need any additional APIs, the algorithm would be "find all the terms, expand those with some values, then validate the result as a valid URI reference"?

   But yeah I think there's some lack of clarity here (probably on the part of the JSON Schema spec?) on what exactly we mean by "valid URI template" (the example I shared was straight out of our own test suite). @handrews @epoberezkin have I totally missed something here?

   That said, I may opt for functionality like what exists in rfc3986 for validation. There, we build a Validator object, tell it what we want it to validate and then pass in a URIReference object. I'm thinking we'd do the same here. Thoughts?

   This sounds totally reasonable by the way.
4. epoberezkin commented on Jun 25, 2017

   

   epoberezkin

   on Jun 25, 2017

   More actions

   So I'm getting a sense that what a "valid" URI template might mean is one that when you expand it ends up expanding into an invalid URI reference according to RFC 3986?

   @Julian My reading of the spec was that it is not required at all that URI template expands into a valid URI, there are many places in 6570 that at least imply it. It explicitly says that not all expansions would be valid URIs and also that the character set is wider.

   I ended up just constructing a regular expression that [I think] matches ABNF from the spec, feel free to review and use it if you like: https://github.com/epoberezkin/ajv/blob/master/lib/compile/formats.js#L12
5. epoberezkin commented on Jun 25, 2017

   

   epoberezkin

   on Jun 25, 2017

   Last edited by epoberezkin

   More actions

   @sigmavirus24 RFC 6570 prohibits curly braces in literals, they only can surround expressions, so the above is not a valid URI template according to their ABNF (also doesn't match my regular expression). See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6570#section-2.1
6. sigmavirus24 commented on Jun 25, 2017

   

   sigmavirus24

   on Jun 25, 2017

   Collaborator

   More actions

   @epoberezkin you're right. I haven't read the spec in a while and I just noticed

                           ; any Unicode character except: CTL, SP,
                           ;  DQUOTE, "'", "%" (aside from pct-encoded),
                           ;  "<", ">", "\", "^", "`", "{", "|", "}"
   

   I'll have to correct for that.
7. sigmavirus24

   added a commit that references this issue on Jul 22, 2017

   Add basic Validation for URITemplates

   ...

   This issue will close once commit 52fa015 is merged into the 'main' branch.

   52fa015
8. sigmavirus24 commented on Jul 22, 2017

   

   sigmavirus24

   on Jul 22, 2017

   Collaborator

   More actions

   So this is started in #36. I had trouble coming up with validations outside of the unbalanced braces because those "invalid characters" could be converted into their percent-encoded representations per the paragraph above that ABNF.
9. sigmavirus24 commented on Jul 31, 2017

   

   sigmavirus24

   on Jul 31, 2017

   Collaborator

   More actions

   @Julian, this is a friendly ping for your feedback on #36.
10. Julian commented on Jul 31, 2017

    

    Julian

    on Jul 31, 2017

    Author

    More actions

    Hey! Sorry, I was traveling a bit the past few weeks :), will have a look right now, thanks for getting to it!

    👍React with 👍1Reacted by Ian Stapleton Cordasco
11. Julian

    added a commit that references this issue on May 14, 2018

    This isn't released, and seems unlikely to be by the time we want to.

    ...

    b6d654a