[JSON] Allow negative test values for multipleOf
#223
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
riedgar-ms
reviewed
Jul 30, 2025
|
|
||
| #[rstest] | ||
| #[case::positive_multipleof(3)] | ||
| #[case::negative_multipleof(-3)] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to:
https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/draft-bhutton-json-schema-validation-00#rfc.section.6.2.1
A negative value for multipleOf should be rejected?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's also unclear to me if multipleOf should be allowed to be zero, particularly given that JSON doesn't have a concept of NaN.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
According to the draft, it should be strictly greater than zero. Good catch (although it does seem that negative numbers are perfectly well defined, and zero is easy enough to define as "the constant zero")
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Arguably, this fix could go in
derivre, which currently only produces regexes for positive multiples. However, it's easy enough to apply the fix hereCloses #222