Remove incorrect logic for oneOf, anyOf and properties

[justin-tay]

This removes the incorrect logic introduced as part of the fixes for

• Validation Error when using OneOf in OpenAPI specs #110
• Validation issue in oneOf when elements have optional fields #185

This incorrect logic applies to applicators such as oneOf such that it will attempt to special handle cases where there is no validation failures but there are optional properties that are missing.

There is actually no special logic differences between JSON Schema and OpenAPI with regards to the handling of applicators such as oneOf. This misunderstanding likely arose due to the incorrect example for oneOf on one of the swagger websites which has not been fixed. The OpenAPI spec authors has clarified that the example is wrong and is not compliant with the OpenAPI spec.

• Examples of oneOf keyword are incorrect swagger-api/swagger.io-docs#253
• oneOf behaviour clarification OAI/OpenAPI-Specification#3477

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 77.77778% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 78.81%. Comparing base (48ca3c2) to head (25705ed).
Report is 21 commits behind head on master.

Files	Patch %	Lines
...etworknt/schema/AdditionalPropertiesValidator.java	80.00%	2 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
...in/java/com/networknt/schema/DependentSchemas.java	60.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...c/main/java/com/networknt/schema/NotValidator.java	50.00%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...main/java/com/networknt/schema/OneOfValidator.java	33.33%	1 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️

❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##             master    #1053      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     78.90%   78.81%   -0.10%     
- Complexity     1965     2017      +52     
============================================
  Files           172      190      +18     
  Lines          6352     6513     +161     
  Branches       1255     1244      -11     
============================================
+ Hits           5012     5133     +121     
- Misses          867      910      +43     
+ Partials        473      470       -3     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[s-ven]

Hum, should this change have been part of a MINOR revision change (1.4.0 to 1.4.1) ?

It is quite often that trying to upgrade to a more recent MINOR revision of networknt will breaks our JSON schemas

[stevehu]

I didn't realize that the changes broke the user's code. What is the best way to have the next release? Should we remove the 1.4.1, 1.4.2 and 1.4.3 and release 1.5.0?

[justin-tay]

I think it's too late to remove 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 1.4.3 as now that will break the libraries/users that are already using those versions.

I actually consider this change to be a bug fix. It should be noted that none of the existing tests nor even the additional tests actually hit the affected removed codes. Even the invalid swagger example actually behaved like the standard applicator, ie. the swagger example was already no longer applicable and didn't consider nodes that failed with required to be acceptable, likely this was fixed by other changes as these codes aren't specific to openapi and would have affected the standard json schema evaluations. This possibly introduced very subtle hard to find bugs in standard evaluations.

[s-ven]

agree, too late to remove, that's not what I'm asking,
I just wanted you guys to know about this (it happened also when I migrated from 1.3.0 to 1.3.x, I had to refactor the schema builder code)
thanks for prompt answer, and also for building this library !

[stevehu]

@s-ven I have merged all the latest PRs and released the 1.5.0 tag. Thanks a lot for the suggestions. It is hard to determine if any change can break users' code as different users will use the library differently. It is important for our users to report these breaking changes to us. Thanks a lot for your help.