Skip to content
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.

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

permit Titanium JsonLD compactArrays property configuration #3323

Closed
ndr-brt opened this issue Jul 21, 2023 · 9 comments
Closed

permit Titanium JsonLD compactArrays property configuration #3323

ndr-brt opened this issue Jul 21, 2023 · 9 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers stale Open for x days with no activity

Comments

@ndr-brt
Copy link
Member

ndr-brt commented Jul 21, 2023

Feature Request

As reported in various issues as:

Seems that it would be useful for some users to have the jsonld array not compacted by default when they have a single entry.
To solve this, we could set compactArrays to false by default, leaving the possibility to enable it with a configuration setting.

However, just for the record, the rule of thumb is to always expand a json-ld before processing it, because the compaction process can have different outputs.

Which Areas Would Be Affected?

json-ld extension

@ndr-brt ndr-brt added enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers labels Jul 21, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt added this to the Milestone 11 milestone Jul 21, 2023
@juliapampus
Copy link
Contributor

As decided in the DSP group, an array with only one item should never be compacted to an object on the DSP layer. Thus, the current behaviour needs to be changed, and the requested configuration should only apply to EDC-specific APIs.

@wolf4ood wolf4ood modified the milestones: Milestone 11, Milestone 12 Sep 15, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt modified the milestones: Milestone 12, Milestone 13 Nov 15, 2023
@ndr-brt ndr-brt removed this from the Milestone 13 milestone Jan 17, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 1, 2024

This issue is stale because it has been open for 14 days with no activity.

Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2024

This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale.

1 similar comment
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Feb 9, 2024

This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Feb 9, 2024
@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Feb 9, 2024
@florianrusch-zf
Copy link
Contributor

florianrusch-zf commented Feb 19, 2024

Still an open point. We discovered this also in the catalog regarding the distribution field. We received an object instead of an array. We also looked into the swagger documentation, where is pointed out, that the distribution should be an array, also if only one object is within the array.

From the swagger docu for 0.5.3:

"dcat:distribution": [
      {
        "@type": "dcat:Distribution",
        "dct:format": {
          "@id": "HttpData"
        },
        "dcat:accessService": "5e839777-d93e-4785-8972-1005f51cf367"
      }
    ]

And btw. the @id is wrong in the example response...

From an 0.5.3 EDC catalog request:

            "dcat:distribution": {
                "@type": "dcat:Distribution",
                "dct:format": {
                    "@id": "HttpProxy"
                },
                "dcat:accessService": "812ea4ba-d691-4926-a191-d34f25780032"
            },

@ndr-brt
Copy link
Member Author

ndr-brt commented Feb 19, 2024

@florianrusch-zf in fact the two representations you pasted are equivalent for the json-ld specs. the committer group decided that this issue is not so important to be put in a milestone, the general suggestion is to always expand the json-ld response body before processing (as this typescript client and this java client do).

anyway, we're open for contributions, feel free to provide one.

@github-actions github-actions bot removed the stale Open for x days with no activity label Feb 20, 2024
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Mar 5, 2024

This issue is stale because it has been open for 14 days with no activity.

@github-actions github-actions bot added the stale Open for x days with no activity label Mar 5, 2024
Copy link

This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale.

@github-actions github-actions bot closed this as not planned Won't fix, can't repro, duplicate, stale Mar 13, 2024
Copy link

This issue was closed because it has been inactive for 7 days since being marked as stale.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request good first issue Good for newcomers stale Open for x days with no activity
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants