feat: support jiff types #364
Conversation
Signed-off-by: tison <wander4096@gmail.com>
schemars/tests/integration/jiff.rs
Outdated
| // test!(Zoned) | ||
| // .assert_allows_ser_roundtrip_default() | ||
| // .assert_matches_de_roundtrip(arbitrary_values()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Failed locally when running test:
failures:
---- jiff::jiff stdout ----
thread 'jiff::jiff' panicked at schemars/tests/integration/test_helper.rs:193:13:
serialize schema should allow serialized value: "1970-01-01T00:00:00+00:00[UTC]"
note: run with `RUST_BACKTRACE=1` environment variable to display a backtrace
failures:
Not sure if we need to extend the test helper but I'd include the minimal work code. Other improvements can be made as follow-ups.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fixed in 3855539
- Use a custom format because jiff's
Zoneddefault format is not "date-time". I'd like to know where is the definition of "date-time" though. - Enable default features for jiff in tests, it pulls the tzdb so that the test can work properly.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
While jiff's Zoned default serialize format is not fully RFC-3339 but instead "A hybrid format derived from RFC 3339, RFC 9557 and ISO 8601" - https://docs.rs/jiff/latest/jiff/fmt/temporal/index.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To be clear here, specifically, jiff::Zoned serializes to a fully compatible RFC 9557 timestamp. RFC 9557 is an update to RFC 3339.
Additionally, a jiff::Timestamp serializes to a fully compatible RFC 3339 timestamp.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Additionally, a jiff::Timestamp serializes to a fully compatible RFC 3339 timestamp.
Yes. I tag jiff::Timestamp with format: 'date-time' and it works well.
jiff::Zoned serializes to a fully compatible RFC 9557 timestamp
Good to know. IIUC before JSON Schema provide a builtin format for it, or extend the date-time format to accept RFC 9557, we should be fine with the workaround for a custom format. Out of curiosity, is the timestamp format in RFC-3339 a subset of RFC-9557's?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that makes sense. I'm not super familiar with JSON Schema though. Where is the custom format you're using documented? Like I would kind of expect to see a mention of RFC 9557 somewhere.
Out of curiosity, is the timestamp format in RFC-3339 a subset of RFC-9557's?
I would say yes. Although whether RFC 9557's clarification on the meaning of Z and -00:00 is considered a superset of RFC 3339 is perhaps up for debate, but it's a very small point. In terms of the actual format supported, yes, RFC 9557 is a superset. Basically, RFC 9557 adds and defines the semantics for annotations to be appended to an RFC 3339 timestamp.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Where is the custom format you're using documented?
It's customized ("zoned-date-time") in this lib rather than documented elsewhere. I filed json-schema-org/json-schema-spec#1572 to see if the JSON Schema working group agrees to extend the definition of "date-time" format to accept timestamp strings in RFC 9557 format.
Signed-off-by: tison <wander4096@gmail.com>
This closes #359.
cc @GREsau
FYI @BurntSushi - I'd appreciate it if you have some time to see if this integration make correct assumption. And I noticed that jiff's weekday doesn't implement ser/de while chrono's does, perhaps it's a new feature candidate to consider.