[Question] Is the property omitted, or is it nullable? about json-kifu-format HOT 5 CLOSED

It means it's omitted like {}, which is similar to TypeScript's ?.

from json-kifu-format.

Hmm, that's a good catch. I guess I didn't really pay attention to null vs undefined and wrote the jkf player.

So let me update the answer: I intended to be "lacking value", but null is acceptable if we consider the spec partially consists of jkf player too.

Options for the schema:

• Disallow null for the from field and make these files invalid
  • I want to avoid this to reject possibly generated JKF files for last several years
• Allow null along with missing value for from field (and other fields if we find ones), and note that it's a historical reason
• Allow null for all the fields annotated with ?

I'm not sure if which one of second of third is the best

from json-kifu-format.

I see, makes sense. Let's go with the third option

from json-kifu-format.

While fixing draft JSON Schema file (#51 ), following error occured to specification/files/ryuou201409020101.jkf.json (which is symlinked from test/files/jkf/ryuou201409020101.jkf for this constraint):

specification/files/ryuou201409020101.jkf.json invalid
[
  {
    instancePath: '/moves/44/move/from',
    schemaPath: '#/$defs/placeFormat/type',
    keyword: 'type',
    params: { type: 'object' },
    message: 'must be object'
  }
]

where

$ jq '.moves[44].move.from' specification/files/ryuou201409020101.jkf.json
null

According to your comment above, the existing JKF files (and possibly serializer, since it seems that they are generated automatically) is against the specification, I think.

from json-kifu-format.

In terms of JSON Schema, all options are possible 👍
Based on the current game record files, the third option seems to be a good choice. (Since the both notations has almost same semantics for humans.)

from json-kifu-format.