Home / Sample diff
Put two reviews side by side. A fix counts only when the same check ran again over the whole input, and the diff will also tell you what the fix broke.
A finding is the same finding before and after if it has the same fingerprint. It is called resolved only when its rule ran again, at the same version, over input that was read in full. If the rule could not run the second time, or the input was only partly read, the finding is listed as not shown to be fixed with the reason, never quietly dropped. This run had 0 of those.
| Rule | Cause | Before | After |
|---|---|---|---|
CC-CONSIST-01 | conflicting types for freight-values.absolutemoneycost | 1 | 0 |
CC-ERR-01 | no error response documented | 53 | 0 |
CC-EX-02 | example violates schema at /absolutemoneycost | 0 | 1 |
CC-SCHEMA-01 | no schema for application/json | 2 | 0 |
MediumCC-EX-02 Request or success-response example does not validate against its own schema
Not a finding anyone had before. See how it arose in the note below.
This one came from the revision itself. It changed the type of the money property from string to number, which settled the conflict between two schemas, but left an example value of "1.00" in quotes. The example no longer matched its own schema. A person reading the change would easily miss it. The diff reported it because the example check ran again after the change.
| Rule | Looks for | Before | After |
|---|---|---|---|
CC-CONSIST-01 | The same property has incompatible types in different schemas | Gap found | No gap |
CC-ERR-01 | Operation documents no error response | Gap found | No gap |
CC-EX-02 | Request or success-response example does not validate against its own schema | No gap | Gap found |
CC-REF-01 | Internal $ref that does not resolve | Not applicable | No gap |
CC-SCHEMA-01 | Request or response declares a structured content type but no schema | Gap found | No gap |
ERR-02 | Error responses lack a shared, machine-readable shape | Not applicable | No gap |
ERR-04 | Which failures are worth retrying is not described | Not applicable | No gap |
Two rules went from not applicable to passed because the revision gave them something to check: once error responses exist, their shape and retry advice can be examined.
| Rule | Cause | Places |
|---|---|---|
MediumCC-ERR-01 | no error response documented | 53 |
HighCC-SCHEMA-01 | no schema for application/json | 2 |
MediumCC-CONSIST-01 | conflicting types for freight-values.absolutemoneycost | 1 |
| Rule | Cause | Places |
|---|---|---|
MediumCC-PARAM-01 | required parameter without description | 42 |
LowCC-DESC-02 | weak description: restates its name | 9 |
MediumPAG-01 | no pagination | 5 |
LowCC-RESP-01 | response without description | 4 |
LowAUTH-02 | security scheme without description | 2 |
LowCC-DESC-02 | weak description: too short | 2 |
MediumCC-PARAM-01 | required request property without description | 1 |
LowCC-EX-01 | no request or response example | 1 |
LowDATA-02 | unformatted date/time properties | 1 |
LowIDEM-01 | no idempotency | 1 |
LowNAME-01 | inconsistent casing: kebab-case,snake_case,camelcase | 1 |
LowNAME-01 | verbs in some paths | 1 |
LowRATE-01 | no rate limit documentation | 1 |