You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We also don't handle properties in the not schema.
We can think of the various components of a not schema as independent constraints. So if a not schema contains independent constraints X, Y, and Z, we could rewrite that as not: allOf: [X, Y Z]. Then we can transform that into anyOf: [ not: X, not: Y, not: Z]. While we don't currently properly handle anyOf(see #414), once we do, that will turn into aoneOf` power set of those.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently we don't properly handle the general case of
not
. We do (pretty much) properly address cases such as this:However, we don't handle
We also don't handle properties in the
not
schema.We can think of the various components of a
not
schema as independent constraints. So if anot
schema contains independent constraints X, Y, and Z, we could rewrite that asnot: allOf: [X, Y Z]
. Then we can transform that intoanyOf: [ not: X, not: Y, not: Z]. While we don't currently properly handle
anyOf(see #414), once we do, that will turn into a
oneOf` power set of those.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: