-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 41
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
Research of existing implementations by language #418
Comments
(A brief task list is now in the issue description!) |
Have we decided on what "high quality implementation" means? I suspect some of the results of #408 (interfaces) will be part of that definition. |
Could a work product of this include a published report? Target readership being technical leads and senior leadership. |
Hey! Can you guys fill me in on what was meant by
Are you saying something more elaborate than the task in the description? I.e.
|
I think that's it, yeah. Maybe you'd think of that as a "further research" task, and so out of scope. And maybe you're right. I think we were expecting to see something less crude and more specific in terms of criteria that can be reported on a regular basis. Something we can later use to demonstrate the developing maturity of the ecosystem. |
Yeah that's pretty much it. The question came up in the last call, and scanning the issue, I didn't see anything, so I commented. Then @benjagm posted the same question as a meeting update. |
Got it, here are a few more specifics then, which I'll also add to the description:
I don't know that I believe in any objective summary metric for these (i.e. one single "yes it's good" or "no it's not") -- I don't believe such a metric exists in general for software, and JSON Schema implementations being no different in my opinion -- someone using them may however use these factoids to decide whether it's good or not I think. Perhaps watching for "improvement" on that list though is a good way to measure maturity. |
I think it's worth noting in any results we do publish, that things like "recent releases or commets" are not always good indicators of anything on their own. If an implementation is 100% compliant and not javascript (ha), it's probably fine and doesn't need updates. |
100% agree -- I think the same thing is true for "how many open issues does it have", some projects have lots of feature requests and some not, I think these are the exact sort of things which make a full summary metric basically impossible/useless. |
For the "health" metric, the JSON-Schema-Test-Suite should play an important part. The criteria could be:
|
@delixfe that's definitely working into the equation, however we also have to recognize that an implementation may pass a majority of the tests but still have open, unaddressed issues, or it won't be updated when new tests are added, or other things. |
After a recent chat, @Julian will be writing up a PR that includes a reporting template for this work. |
There is obvious overlap here with our existing list of implementations -- note though that we have loose (or no) criteria for listing implementations on the page. Here instead we wish to specifically raise languages for which we know no good implementation to exist, despite the language being popular or widespread, if any. What's here does *not* yet render this data anywhere, nor does it implement the dynamic API calling mentioned in the body (for retrieving statistics from any listed repository). What it does do is identify a simple initial list of languages (from TIOBE and GitHub's own lists), and propose a format for tracking data points about implementations meeting the proposed criteria. The initial goal is to get feedback on this template, and to solicit help in filling it in for these languages. Refs: json-schema-org/community#418
I've put said initial PR up for review: #554 with essentially the same criteria as what we were discussing. Let me know what y'all think. |
There is obvious slight overlap here with our existing list of implementations on the web page -- note though that we have loose (or no) criteria for listing implementations on the page. Here instead we wish to specifically raise languages for which we know no good implementation to exist, despite the language being popular or widespread, if any. What's here does *not* yet render this data anywhere, nor does it implement the dynamic API calling mentioned in the body (for retrieving statistics from any listed repository). What it does do is identify a simple initial list of languages (from TIOBE and GitHub's own lists), and propose a format for tracking data points about implementations meeting the proposed criteria. The initial goal is to get feedback on this template, and to solicit help in filling it in for these languages. Refs: #418
Hello! 👋 This issue has been automatically marked as stale due to inactivity 😴 It will be closed in 180 days if no further activity occurs. To keep it active, please add a comment with more details. There can be many reasons why a specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is a lack of time, not a lack of interest. Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through our slack channel : https://json-schema.org/slack Thank you for your patience ❤️ |
Problem: We do not know which languages have high quality implementations.
While members of the core team / TSC (not yet formally formed) have implementaitons in different languages, we do not know if we have "high quality" implemenations in all major languages.
Having high quality implementaitons in all major languages would improve the ecosystem. If we can identify gaps in implementations, we could then target resources to support specific languages or implementations. Overall, this would improve our ecosystem.
This item is just about the research and report, and not about making any actions or decisoions as a result of such a report.
Assessed as high impact/low effort during our collaborators summit 2023.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: