Merged
Conversation
…element is the same as poco type
cknaap
previously requested changes
Sep 4, 2025
Member
cknaap
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The changes are ok, but maybe not enough. See the comment on Pattern validation.
alexzautke
approved these changes
Sep 5, 2025
This was referenced Oct 27, 2025
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Regex on a null value + extension should not result in a failure - perhaps the extension has special meaning for value being missing, so we'll make it a warning instead.
The extension context validator need not look up runtime types if it is the exact type already.