Example Site Scripts Invalid Against Latest Site Script Schema

[joselarios]

Category

• Bug

Describe the bug

Some Site Script examples in the latest documentation for Site design JSON schema fail to validate against the latest Site Script Schema.

Certain Site Script examples do validate (with some modifications to the JSON site script as noted in "N.B." below). I can provide examples of those if needed.

I might have tracked the issue to the way the "additionalProperties" property is specified in several action definitions, but I need confirmation in case the validation error lies elsewhere.

Steps to reproduce

1. Use the example JSON in the Define a new content type section of the documentation to form a site script. For reference, the following is a site script constructed in this way:

{ "$schema": "schema.json", "actions": [ { "verb": "createContentType", "name": "Contoso Projects", "description": "custom list content type", "parentName": "Item", "hidden": false, "subactions": [ { "verb": "addSiteColumn", "internalName": "siteColumn1Text" }, { "verb": "addSiteColumn", "internalName": "siteColumn2Number" }, { "verb": "addSiteColumn", "internalName": "siteColumn3Note" } ] } ] }

N.B. While the documentation specifies it, I have removed the following properties from this Site Script: "bindingdata" and "version". When these properties are included, the Site Script JSON will always fail to validate against the latest Site Script Schema, because there is an "additionalProperties" property that prohibits them—please refer to the Site Script Schema for confirmation. In the previous (draft-06) Site Script Schema, those properties were defined and allowed.

2. Use a JSON Schema validator to validate the JSON above against the latest Site Script Schema. E.g. I have used JSON Schema Validator as well as Ajv to confirm the invalidity.

3. See validation error.

Expected behavior

JSON Site Script example should be valid against latest Site Script Schema.

Additional context

The main validation issue seems to be that the Site Script action has properties the schema does not allow. However, the errors seem to suggest that none of the properties are allowed by the Site Script Schema, even the required ones for this example (e.g. verb, name, hidden).

This suggests that the error is in how the "additionalProperties" property is set in the Site Script Schema for the action. I can provide additional information on this if needed.

[msft-github-bot]

Thank you for reporting this issue. We will be triaging your incoming issue as soon as possible.

[bcameron1231]

Yup. So bindata and version was removed from the latest schema. This isn't a bug in Site Designs, but the documentation didn't get updated with the JSON Schema. I think all we need to do is update the documentation page to remove the old schema declarations in the JSON to match the new schema.

[joselarios]

Hi @bcameron1231,

I think there may be two related issues here:

(1) As you mentioned, the documentation needs to be updated to exclude "bindata" and "version", as any Site Script with those properties will be invalid against the latest Site Script Schema.

(2) The Site Script Schema itself is incorrectly formed with respect to action schemas that have both the "additionalProperties" and "allOf" property—the "additionalProperties" is nested incorrectly in the Schema, or so I suspect. This is the larger problem which I outlined above, and which would require updating the Site Script Schema itself.

[pschaeflein]

I can confirm point (2) above. Removing the "additionalProperties" setting from definitions that have "allOf" is the fix for many validation errors. (That is also the approach I've taken in my VSCode extension.)

[github-actions]

Thank you for taking the time to file an issue. We periodically archive older or inactive issues as part of our issue management process, which automatically closes them once they are archived.

If you’d like to understand more about why and how we handle archived (closed) issues, please see Our approach to closed issues.

We appreciate your contribution and if this is still an active issue with the latest SPFx versions, please do resubmit the details. We needed to perform a cleanup, so that we can start with a clean table with a new process. We apologize for the inconvenience this might cause.