Returning error messages from applicators

[EmilsOzolins]

Work on #51 issue

[harrel56]

Funny stuff - GH doesn't make repo variables accessible in PRs from forks. I thought it's only the case for secrets :) Did a quick research how to work around this issue and it's not so straight forward - probably the easiest ad-hoc solution would be if you added required variables to your fork (see attached screenshot).

There still is a SonarCloud step which uses secrets - might disable it for fork PRs temporarily until I figure out how to do it correctly.

[harrel56]

BTW thanks for the willingness to contribute :) Let me know if you want to just take care of oneOf applicator or all of them. Because there probably will be some decisions to make:

• some applicators maybe don't need to produce any error message
• exact content of these new error messages
• I'm starting to feel that Applicator interface might be up for removal

[EmilsOzolins]

Funny stuff - GH doesn't make repo variables accessible in PRs from forks. I thought it's only the case for secrets :) Did a quick research how to work around this issue and it's not so straight forward - probably the easiest ad-hoc solution would be if you added required variables to your fork (see attached screenshot).

There still is a SonarCloud step which uses secrets - might disable it for fork PRs temporarily until I figure out how to do it correctly.

Thanks, I did exactly as you suggested. Let's see if it works now :)

[EmilsOzolins]

BTW thanks for the willingness to contribute :) Let me know if you want to just take care of oneOf applicator or all of them. Because there probably will be some decisions to make:

• some applicators maybe don't need to produce any error message
• exact content of these new error messages
• I'm starting to feel that Applicator interface might be up for removal

I can take care of all of them but as I am not closely familiar with all of the specification, I only handled anyOf, allOf, not and oneOf for now. Also removed the Applicators interface as it seemed a bit redundant, as you already mentioned.

Let me know what you think about current proposal and if there is any other applicator I should take care of :)

[harrel56]

This looks really good - left a few comments, mainly error messages nitpicks. Still not 100% about the suggestions but I would at least try to be more consistent

[harrel56]

As for the failing workflows - I think I'll just test it out locally and merge. I'll try to fix it later on, so contribution would be smoother.

[harrel56]

Yeah, and I think the scope for now is fine. Gonna take care of whatever is left later on. Hopefully tomorrow all the changes could be released

[EmilsOzolins]

Thanks for the comments. I completely agree with your suggestions and have updated it accordingly

[harrel56]

Looking good - appreciate your help :) gonna merge now