rules: core: Add minValueInclusive rule #389
Conversation
| tests: { | ||
| belowMinimum: { | ||
| description: 'Raises a failure if the value is below the associated minValueInclusive property.', | ||
| message: 'The value of this property should be above or equal to {{minValueInclusive}}.', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest slightly more conventional language here around "greater than".
| message: 'The value of this property should be above or equal to {{minValueInclusive}}.', | |
| message: 'The value of this property must be greater than or equal to {{minValueInclusive}}.', |
Also in general worth noting that within messages anything that results in a FAILURE must use the language "must", and anything that results in a WARNING must use the language "should". This is because "must" and "should" key words actually have defined interpretations (https://openactive.io/open-booking-api/EditorsDraft/1.0CR3/#conformance)
| -100.1, | ||
| -100, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is best practice to test boundary conditions, so e.g.
| -100.1, | |
| -100, | |
| -100.1, | |
| -100, | |
| -3.9, |
| 89.12345, | ||
| 89, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is best practice to test boundary conditions, so e.g.
| 89.12345, | |
| 89, | |
| 89.12345, | |
| 89, | |
| 4.1, |
|
@Lathrisk sorry just spotted this, should be:
anything that results in a FAILURE must use the language "must", and anything that results in a WARNING must use the language "should". This is because "must" and "should" key words actually have defined interpretations (https://openactive.io/open-booking-api/EditorsDraft/1.0CR3/#conformance) |
|
I'll put together an update shortly! |
#378
Adds a rule to check the values against minValueInclusive when it is supplied.