Check that the 3.2 schema is in sync with the spec changes

[lornajane]

[lornajane]

We think it is in sync

[karenetheridge]

We can add something for #4776.

(reopening as we haven't finalized the list of changes for 3.2 yet)

[handrews]

@karenetheridge what does #4776 require? It does not change anything that was in the schema AFAIK? (I agree with re-opening it, though, there will be schema changes with the style: "cookie" and allowReserved PRs).

[karenetheridge]

"The example and examples fields are mutually exclusive."

My understanding is that specification restrictions are reflected in the schema whenever it is possible to express that restriction. e.g. we include the restriction that "schema" and "content" are mutually exclusive in the parameter and header objects, and also "operationRef" and "operationId" are mutually exclusive in the link object.

So for #4776, we would do:

oneOf:
  - required: [example]
  - required: [examples]

[handrews]

Other PRs needing schema changes (draft PR that may or may not be at all correct:

• v3.2 Schema changes #4904
• v3.2: Enc style defaults #4899
• v3.2: Fix allowReserved #4900
• v3.2: Add style: cookie, explain pct-encoding #4902

[handrews]

@karenetheridge

"The example and examples fields are mutually exclusive."

I thought that was already checked in the schemas- most such conditions are. This is not new in 3.2, it just got moved because those fields (together) are no longer conditional on other fields in the Parameter and Header Objects.

If they're not, I agree that they should be.