Correct raw JSON accessibility regression fixture premise
This commit is contained in:
@@ -57,3 +57,9 @@ Source-backed inventory plus rendered representative samples and the full integr
|
||||
### Final SB03 peer correction
|
||||
|
||||
Parent review found the raw-JSON escape-hatch error was not described by its composite host. The existing parse-error state now sets invalidity/description on the named `.param-json-editor` group; Monaco retains its domain-specific textbox name. The invalid JSON → valid JSON correction regression fails for the missing role/relationship first, then passes with related ParameterValueForm/Monaco/TreeView tests (`raw-json-association-red.log`, `raw-json-association-green.log`). No validator/value projection change. Last full frozen suite1559/1559 is retained; only this narrow relationship and one regression followed it, with parent approval to use focused verification rather than rerun all tests.
|
||||
|
||||
### Corrective fixture commit after premature SB03 commit
|
||||
|
||||
Commit915a8a59 was created before the author checked the focused result carefully. Its raw-json-association-green.log actually contains98 passes/1 failure and remains unchanged as historical evidence. The fixture incorrectly expected valid JSON object syntax to erase the existing unresolved-schema error. This was a test-premise error; production validation must retain that error.
|
||||
|
||||
The corrected regression now asserts invalid syntax is linked, valid object syntax still retains the unknown-declared-type error, and then valid JSON null clears invalidity under InboundApiSchema's existing explicit present-null-is-allowed contract. All prior relationship/domain-name assertions remain. No production source or validator changed in this correction. Focused ParameterValueForm/Monaco/TreeView result:99/99 passed, zero skips/failures (raw-json-association-corrected-green.log). Parent accepted focused verification after the prior1559 full baseline. This paragraph supersedes the premature green claim above; it does not rewrite the red evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user