8000 WIP removed the apparently-unnecessary anyOf blocks by gmabey · Pull Request #338 · sigmf/SigMF · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

WIP removed the apparently-unnecessary anyOf blocks #338

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

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Mar 15, 2025

Conversation

gmabey
Copy link
Contributor
@gmabey gmabey commented Feb 4, 2025

Note that (for clarity on the substantive edits) this does not include appropriate indent-level changes.
Closes #337

@Teque5
Copy link
Collaborator
Teque5 commented Feb 5, 2025

I think you should include the indent changes here too. I usually do a round-trip in python but I think people also use jq for this.

@@ -76,7 +91,7 @@
"default": 0,
"minimum": 0,
"!comment": "The maximum value for this property is equal to 2^63 - 1, making it easy to fit into a signed 64-bit integer.",
"maximum": 9223372036854775807,
"maximum": 9223372036854776000,
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think you meant to change these. This number is 2**63 + 192. Was previously max signed integer.

@gmabey
Copy link
Contributor Author
gmabey commented Feb 5, 2025

:-O blames jq
At least the mystery is solved regarding how the previous value for maximum came to be -- it was surely int64_t(double(2**64-1))

@gmabey
Copy link
Contributor Author
gmabey commented Feb 5, 2025

I suppose if we were smart we would use an integer small enough such that int64_t(double(maximum_value)) < (2**63-1) ...

@gmabey
Copy link
Contributor Author
gmabey commented Feb 6, 2025

I now notice that the jq-ification rewrote 1e12 -> 1000000000000 which I dislike

@gmabey
Copy link
Contributor Author
gmabey commented Mar 14, 2025

Looking for feedback from @777arc (or anyone who can give these changes a spin).
Also, I'm thinking harder about that joke/threat I made to suggest a number less than 2**63-1 in an effort to sidestep this issue in the future (jq-ification). Experimentally I found it to be 9223372036854774784 (tentatively).

@777arc
Copy link
Member
777arc commented Mar 15, 2025

FYI you can see the rendered docs by going to the "Build docs" check then clicking Summary on the left, then click "compiled_docs", and open sigmf-spec.html. The core:sample_rate renders the same, everything seems to render the same.

@777arc 777arc merged commit d9147ff into sigmf:main Mar 15, 2025
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

simplification of sigmf-schema.json
3 participants
0