refactor: const and enum shall have no type - #1104
Merged
Merged
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Jan Kowalleck <jan.kowalleck@gmail.com>
jkowalleck
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 14, 2026 16:34
jkowalleck
changed the title
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
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
schemas that have a
constorenumshall not have a type.for
consts andenums, the type is not only redundant, but misleading - since the value constraints require exact match already telling the exact type.to be clear< having a
const/enumwith anadditionaltypedoes not add any clarity, it is mere a stumbling block for future changes and downstream implementations.progress: