Replies: 2 comments 5 replies
-
|
To be honest Github team should have publish a JSON schemas from day 1, back in 2018. The fact that they do not maintain it is a big shame. These schemas can also be used to generate documentation not only for editors. I really hope this would change soon, hopefully seeing GHA folks starting to contribute to the version from schemastore and later moving the schema to their own (public!) repository. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
yes I agree |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I suspect that GitHub doesn't want to commit to only doing things in workflow files which can be expressed under JSON Schema. If GitHub adopted the schema themselves, it would represent a really significant commitment to making validation with tools like The funny thing about this is that GitHub and Microsoft probably have a significant number of staff members who use VSCode+LSP with schemastore schemas. Their own staff probably rely on a volunteer-maintained resource which would be better maintained in-house. One major wrinkle I see here is licensing. I'm not clear on what the steps are for an open-source apache 2 licensed file which attributes copyright to "contributors" to be transferred to GitHub. It might require consent from everyone who has touched that file. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
To be honest this schema is not really a piece of art and GHA team could easily come with another new schema which happens to be compatible with this one (pass the same tests that we already have here). This should address any licensing issues. As soon GHA team makes their schema available under a github repository we can redirect the schemastore to point to it. A JSON schema is not supposed to validate everything, we can think about it as a subset of things. The most common example is validation of templating (GH uses |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
-
|
I'm doubtful that anyone at GitHub wants to write a new schema from scratch for this when there is an existing one for them to use as a starting point. If GitHub were already invested in this, they could have published a schema without being prompted. So the possibility of letting them copy the existing schema is appealing as a first step towards them owning it, but then the licensing issue becomes relevant. As for things that a schema can't validate... I'm less concerned with the logical limits of validation than I am with structures which make validation effectively useless. Azure Pipelines validation is a huge problem because pipelines define an expression language which can manipulate structure with constructs like loops. Without any Microsoft-provided interpreter for the pipelines expression language, validation of those files is always pretty weak and prone to failures. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
{{title}}
{{editor}}'s edit
{{editor}}'s edit
-
If I understand things correctly, for the GitHub Actions schema, the main moving parts are:
SchemaStore/schemastore(github-action.json, github-workflow.json, & github-workflow-template-properties.json), used by e.g. VS Code.Right now, it seems like changes in (1) appear at some point in (2) & (3), sometimes at (more or less) the same time, but sometimes there will be a delay. I would guess that more often (2) is ahead of (3), but I can see that this is not always the case.
It would be amazing if there could be some kind of flow of internal schemas from (1) into (2), in a machine-readable way that could then be ingested by (3).
I realize there may be some challenges to solve, e.g. maybe some of the schemas in (1) would need new parameters specifying which details are not intended to be public knowledge, so they can be filtered out before being pushed to (2).
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions