feat: new linting rules for compositions keys oneOf, anyOf, allOf #2369

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Draft

AlbinaBlazhko17 wants to merge 10 commits into main from feat/new-linting-rules-for-oneof-anyof-allof

+487 −0

Contributor

AlbinaBlazhko17 commented Oct 15, 2025

What/Why/How?

New linting rules to handle illogical use of composition keys: oneOf, anyOf, allOf.

Reference

Resolves #2326

Testing

Screenshots (optional)

Check yourself

Code changed? - Tested with Redoc/Realm/Reunite (internal)
All new/updated code is covered by tests
New package installed? - Tested in different environments (browser/node)
Documentation update considered

Security

The security impact of the change has been considered
Code follows company security practices and guidelines

changeset-bot bot commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 8cec854

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

Contributor

github-actions bot commented Oct 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Command	Mean [s]	Min [s]	Max [s]	Relative
`redocly lint packages/core/src/benchmark/benches/rebilly.yaml`	1.433 ± 0.020	1.407	1.478	1.00 ± 0.02
`redocly-next lint packages/core/src/benchmark/benches/rebilly.yaml`	1.431 ± 0.028	1.391	1.478	1.00

AlbinaBlazhko17 force-pushed the feat/new-linting-rules-for-oneof-anyof-allof branch from 50557a0 to 4ee9d5e Compare

October 21, 2025 11:46


          feat: implement new rule to check illogical usage of composition keyw…

b6216c1

…ords

feat: add proper check for mutually exclusive schemas in oneOf

feat: add checks for object min/max props, required props and additionlProperties

feat: add rule to the oas3_2 spec

refactor: functions naming and returning type

refactor: change if statement

refactor: move areDuplicatedSchemas function to utility and change naming

feat: add new rule no-illogical-any-of-usage

chore: add new rule to type

fix: getEffectiveBounds functionality, pattern check and mutualExclusibity check

feat: add functionality to report more then 1 problem

chore: improve warning messages

feat: add proper checks, refactor and change error messages

fix: error message in areDuplicatedSchemas

refactor: move logic into main function, add helper function, rename utility function

refactor: change naming and functionality for duplicated shcemas function

refactor: nullable function and return statement

fix: nullable type detection

refactor: add utility functions

refactor: remove functions, clean code, refactor additionalProperties

refactor: functions naming, if statement

chore: remove oneOf/anyOf/allOf separate rules and add one to handle different behavior

feat: add proper handling for additionalProperties

chore: update type

feat: add functionality to handle anyOf and allOf checks

AlbinaBlazhko17 force-pushed the feat/new-linting-rules-for-oneof-anyof-allof branch from 4ee9d5e to b6216c1 Compare

October 21, 2025 11:51

AlbinaBlazhko17 added 2 commits

October 21, 2025 14:55


          fix: imports in new rule

bfbf5da


          refactor: remove unused functions and types

f7f7a12

tatomyr requested changes

View reviewed changes

Collaborator

tatomyr left a comment

Had a quick look. I suggest to reorganise the checks, so they cover fist for oneOfs, then anyOfs, and then allOfs. Just duplicate the checks when needed.
Will have another look after you implement those changes.

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts

Comment on lines +33 to +34

		// Helper function to get the composition keyword and schemas
		const compositionData = (() => {

Collaborator

tatomyr Oct 23, 2025

Please use correct naming so you don't need the comments, e.g.:

Suggested change

      
                    // Helper function to get the composition keyword and schemas
          
                    const compositionData = (() => {
          
                    const getSchemaCompositionData = (() => {

or something similar.

Collaborator

tatomyr Oct 23, 2025

Oh, wait, it's an IIFE? Then it's a bit of overengineering. You can do simply this:

const oneOfs = schema.oneOf

if you prefer to have a separate variable, and then just do every needed check. Don't be afraid to repeat yourself.

Contributor Author

AlbinaBlazhko17 Oct 24, 2025

I was thinking about using a separate variable for every composition keyword, but in that case, i need to duplicate checks (duplicated schemas, length of schemas) for every composition keyword and the only difference will be in the warning message. So, the purpose of the IIFE is to return the schema and string, and after that to easily retrieve them in the report message and checks.

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts

+                      // Helper function to get the composition keyword and schemas
+                      const compositionData = (() => {
+                        if (schema.oneOf && Array.isArray(schema.oneOf)) {
+                          return { keyword: 'oneOf' as const, schemas: schema.oneOf };

Collaborator

tatomyr Oct 23, 2025

Technically, your schema could contain oneOf and allOf simultaneously. The code doesn't handle this case.

Contributor Author

AlbinaBlazhko17 Oct 24, 2025

This functionality at all doesn't resolve all nested composition keywords, because we consider, that every composition keyword is a new scope of validation.

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts


		const { keyword, schemas } = compositionData;

		// Check for minimum schema count (oneOf and anyOf require at least 2)

Collaborator

tatomyr Oct 23, 2025

You don't need comments like this as the intention should be clear enough from the condition and the report message.

Contributor Author

AlbinaBlazhko17 Oct 30, 2025

Yeah, you are right. I just left all comments to simplify the review of PR, i will remove it after finalizing the functionality.

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts

+                        return null;
+                      })();
+                      if (!compositionData) return;

Collaborator

tatomyr Oct 23, 2025

This duplicates the skip() functianality.

Contributor Author

AlbinaBlazhko17 Oct 24, 2025

Yeah, it is duplication, because it doesn't see proper type, even we check in skip method.

packages/core/src/rules/oas3/no-illogical-composition-keywords.ts Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

AlbinaBlazhko17 added 7 commits

October 24, 2025 13:55


          chore: change return statement in skip to be more redable

b3b5496


          chore: change return statement from null to undefined

4c87b20


          fix: check for duplicated schemas

94fd1d3


          chore: update report messages

e2badae


          refactor: arePropertiesMutuallyExclusive function

e9552db


          refactor: checking type of object

e41ae72


          refactor: check for mutually exclusive function

8cec854

AlbinaBlazhko17 requested a review from tatomyr

October 30, 2025 09:40

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet