fix: merge pending state update and state update. #128
Conversation
previously caused a conflict where state update objects was valid against both state update and pending state update so the schema validation failed for get_state_update api call since it specifies "oneOf".
|
This stack of pull requests is managed by Graphite. Learn more about stacking. Join @nagmo-starkware and the rest of your teammates on |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArielElp, @EvyatarO, and @nagmo-starkware)
api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1204 at r1 (raw file):
}, "required": [ "storage_diffs",
The problem here is that one of the non-pending fields can appear and you don't require that if one of them appears all of them appear
This is also a bit unreadable. Maybe in this object we can put required at the top of the fields?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @EvyatarO and @ShahakShama)
api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1204 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, ShahakShama wrote…
The problem here is that one of the non-pending fields can appear and you don't require that if one of them appears all of them appear
This is also a bit unreadable. Maybe in this object we can put required at the top of the fields?
Can we do the same trick with additional_properties = false in PENDING_STATE_UPDATE?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, 1 unresolved discussion (waiting on @ArielElp, @EvyatarO, and @ShahakShama)
api/starknet_api_openrpc.json line 1204 at r1 (raw file):
Previously, ArielElp wrote…
Can we do the same trick with additional_properties = false in PENDING_STATE_UPDATE?
no we can't. state_update references pending_state_update if we put additional_properties=false for the pending status update then the state update schema fails since internally there's a part that says it can't have the additional fields (that the state update adds).
this exact example is described in the docs: https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/object.html#extending-closed-schemas
what do you think of this as a solution: https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/conditionals.html#dependentrequired ?
This change is