:amiyaguchi's MSG PR has been merged, but it doesn't address the actual issue I'm seeing which is that the validation document includes a `client_id`, but it's not specified in the schema. So we need to do one of the following: 1. remove `client_id` from the sample document used for validation (separately this year :amiyaguchi is going to add some CI that tells us how much of the validation payload is left unspecified and therefore goes to `additional_properties`; this should be minimized for new schemas) 2. add `client_id` to the schema It's probably possible to glean whether this ping is supposed to have a client_id from data review/client code but in in a cursory inspection I couldn't find it. With one or the other of the above changes I think we can close this out.
Bug 1654558 Comment 9 Edit History
Note: The actual edited comment in the bug view page will always show the original commenter’s name and original timestamp.
:amiyaguchi's MSG PR has been merged, but it doesn't address the actual issue I'm seeing which is that the validation document includes a `client_id`, but it's not specified in the schema. So we need to do one of the following: 1. remove `client_id` from the sample document used for validation (separately this year :amiyaguchi is going to add some CI that tells us how much of the validation payload is left unspecified and therefore goes to `additional_properties`; this should be minimized for new schemas) 2. add `client_id` to the schema It's probably possible to glean whether this ping is supposed to have a `client_id` from data review/client code but in in a cursory inspection I couldn't find it. With one or the other of the above changes I think we can close this out (EDIT: also the actual users list per to grant access to per comment #4).
:amiyaguchi's MSG PR has been merged, but it doesn't address the actual issue I'm seeing which is that the validation document includes a `client_id`, but it's not specified in the schema. So we need to do one of the following: 1. remove `client_id` from the sample document used for validation (separately this year :amiyaguchi is going to add some CI that tells us how much of the validation payload is left unspecified and therefore goes to `additional_properties`; this should be minimized for new schemas) 2. add `client_id` to the schema It's probably possible to glean whether this ping is supposed to have a `client_id` from data review/client code but in in a cursory inspection I couldn't find it. With one or the other of the above changes I think we can close this out (EDIT: also the actual users list to grant access to per comment #4).
:amiyaguchi's MSG PR has been merged, but it doesn't address the actual issue I'm seeing which is that the validation document includes a `client_id`, but it's not specified in the schema. So we need to do one of the following: 1. remove `client_id` from the sample document used for validation (separately this year :amiyaguchi is going to add some CI that tells us how much of the validation payload is left unspecified and therefore goes to `additional_properties`; this should be minimized for new schemas) 2. add `client_id` to the schema It's probably possible to glean whether this ping is supposed to have a `client_id` from data review/client code but in a cursory inspection I couldn't find it. With one or the other of the above changes I think we can close this out (EDIT: also the actual users list to grant access to per comment #4).