discuss `additionalProperties` setting for all json schemas

[kbroch-rivosinc]

IMO we want additionalProperties: false unless there's some use case that makes sense.

why:

• the jsonschema will document what this property is for
• we validate the data against the jsonschema

refs:

• https://json-schema.org/understanding-json-schema/reference/object#additionalproperties

[kbroch-rivosinc]

here's the current landscape:

kbroch@kbroch-mac.local:~/rvi/non-repo-repos/riscv-unified-db on  main via  v22.14.0 via 🐍 v3.13.3 via 💎 v2.6.10
❯ for file in schemas/*.json; do echo -n "$file: "; jq '.additionalProperties' "$file"; done

schemas/config_schema.json: null
schemas/csr_schema.json: null
schemas/ext_schema.json: null
schemas/inst_schema.json: null
schemas/inst_variable_metadatas.json: null
schemas/json-schema-draft-07.json: null
schemas/manual_schema.json: false
schemas/manual_version_schema.json: false
schemas/proc_cert_class_schema.json: false
schemas/proc_cert_model_schema.json: false
schemas/profile_class_schema.json: false
schemas/profile_release_schema.json: null
schemas/profile_schema.json: null
schemas/schema_defs.json: null

[ThinkOpenly]

Since this topic came up in the last day or so, I've been trying to think of a case where we would want to allow additional properties that are not in the JSON schema, and I just can't think of a good use-case.

IMO we want additionalProperties: false unless there's some use case that makes sense.

I think we set it across the board until a use-case comes up that warrants reconsideration.

[dhower-qc]

agree, it should always be false.

[kbroch-rivosinc]

ok, I'll define the missing properties flagged here: #819 (comment) and add them to PR #819.

[AFOliveira]

Going into PRM there may be additions needed to those schemas, things like latency for instructions. However, we can always add those as a fields in the schemas and keep the additionalProperties: false

[dhower-qc]

I'd prefer to keep implementation-dependent stuff like latency out of the schemas. We could define an extension point (like $extra) where you could stick anything non-standard.

Just a thought; I could easily be talked in a different direction.

[AFOliveira]

I agree that the non-architectural properties can be out of the arch schemas, but we need a way to describe extra properties in the same yamls. or in referenceable ones. I'll put some more thought into these in the next week or so and ping back.