Repository navigation
Parser do not validate if channel that is referenced in reply with location has null in address #876
Description
Like in the title
So I have such document
asyncapi: 3.0.0
info:
title: Account Service
version: 1.0.0
description: This service is in charge of processing user signups
channels:
replyChannel:
address: user/signedup
messages:
UserSignedUp:
$ref: '#/components/messages/UserSignedUp'
userSignedup:
address: user/signedup
messages:
UserSignedUp:
$ref: '#/components/messages/UserSignedUp'
operations:
sendUserSignedup:
action: send
channel:
$ref: '#/channels/userSignedup'
messages:
- $ref: '#/channels/userSignedup/messages/UserSignedUp'
reply:
channel:
$ref: '#/channels/replyChannel'
address:
location: '$message.header#/REPLY_TOPIC'
components:
messages:
UserSignedUp:
payload:
type: object
properties:
displayName:
type: string
description: Name of the user
email:
type: string
format: email
description: Email of the userit should not be a valid document. Spec explicitly defines that if in reply you specify dynamic location of the response address (reply.address) then referenced channel must have undefined address or address: null
Activity
jonaslagoni commentedon Nov 9, 2023
We need a new spectral rule for this. To solve this issue:
parser-js/src/ruleset/functions/unusedComponent.ts
Line 7 in d614ffa
replyandaddressto check for whether the associatedchannelhasaddresswithnullvalue.This issue is marked as good first issue, but it's a hard one!
Remember to target the
next-major-specbranch.jonaslagoni commentedon Nov 9, 2023
/gfi typescript
jonaslagoni commentedon Nov 23, 2023
You can go ahead and work on it @Min2who, we dont really assign issues 😄
github-actions commentedon Mar 23, 2024
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴
It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.
There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.
Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.
Thank you for your patience ❤️
ashmit-coder commentedon Mar 29, 2024
hey @jonaslagoni is this still relevant?
ibishal commentedon Jun 15, 2024
Hey @smoya is this issue still valid because in above asyncapi document the studio gives this error
Operation message does not belong to the specified channel.smoya commentedon Jun 17, 2024
@ibishal I fixed the example. Now you will see Studio (or directly the Parser-JS) won't complain about anything when it should.
ibishal commentedon Jun 20, 2024
@smoya the example defined in the issue still gives the same error
smoya commentedon Jun 21, 2024
For some reason, didn't copy the right one. Now I promise it works, please check again 😆
ibishal commentedon Jun 21, 2024
It worksss
but @smoya the spec with the issue mismatch
github-actions commentedon Oct 20, 2024
This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity 😴
It will be closed in 120 days if no further activity occurs. To unstale this issue, add a comment with a detailed explanation.
There can be many reasons why some specific issue has no activity. The most probable cause is lack of time, not lack of interest. AsyncAPI Initiative is a Linux Foundation project not owned by a single for-profit company. It is a community-driven initiative ruled under open governance model.
Let us figure out together how to push this issue forward. Connect with us through one of many communication channels we established here.
Thank you for your patience ❤️
buidlLabs3 commentedon Aug 13, 2026
Hi maintainers, I would like to work on this as my first AsyncAPI contribution.
I reviewed the current repository structure and the earlier guidance on this issue. The v3 ruleset now lives under
packages/parser/src/ruleset/v3onmaster, so my proposed approach is:reply.address.locationis defined while its referenced reply channel has a non-nulladdress.packages/parser/src/ruleset/v3/functionsand register it in the v3 core ruleset.Could you please confirm that the issue is still valid, that
masteris now the correct target branch, and whether external/component reply-channel references should be handled in this rule? I will wait for confirmation before opening a PR.DRafi2006 commentedon Sep 5, 2026
Hi! I’d like to work on this issue. This would be my first contribution to AsyncAPI. I’ll investigate the validation logic, add the necessary fix and tests, and submit a PR. Please assign this issue to me if it’s available.
be-student commentedon Sep 6, 2026
I’m implementing the v3 Spectral rule on
next-major-specfollowing the maintainer guidance above. I’ll cover root and component channels, allow null or omitted channel addresses, and report the diagnostic at the reply channel reference.