Project: OpenAPI (App Definition and Development / Application Definition & Image Build)
File: 2019-10-31-Clarify-Nullable.md

|Tag |Value | |- | - | |Proposal || |Authors|| |Review Manager |TBD| |Status |Promoted| |Implementations |N/A| |Issues | , , , , , , | |Previous Revisions |N/A | |Date |Responsible Party |Description | |- | - || |Oct 31, 2019 | Ted Epstein | Initial proposal | |Apr 8, 2021 | Ted Epstein | Update status to Promoted. The proposal was adopted in . | This proposal aims to clarify the semantics of the `nullable` keyword in OpenAPI 3.0. This clarification would resolve ambiguities, reinforce the intended alignment with JSON Schema, and provide guidance for schema validators, translators, and other tools. The documentation of the `nullable` keyword is incomplete and ambiguous, leaving many questions unanswered, and causing significant difficulty in reconciling certain assumed semantics with JSON Schema. To summarize the problems: `nullable: true` is an expanding assertion that doesn't fit JSON Schema's constraint-based processing model. It is not clear how it interacts with other keywords, and within what scope. `nullable: false`, which is the default value, is not clearly defined, and could be interpreted in a way that breaks fundamental assumptions of JSON Schema. Different OpenAPI schema validators and other tool implementations are likely to have different behaviors because the semantics of `nullable` are not fully specified. Because of the above ambiguities, it is not clear how to translate an OpenAPI Schema Object into a standard JSON Schema for message validation and for other purposes. Some possible interpretations of the OpenAPI spec could make translating to JSON Schema much more difficult. Depending on the interpretation, `nullable` might interact with `oneOf` and `anyOf` in problematic and counter-intuitive ways. The solution proposed herein should: Clarify the boundaries around `nullable` so we know how it interacts with other assertions, applicators, subtypes and supertypes within its context. Clarify the meaning of `nullable: false`. Reaffirm the intended alignment of OpenAPI's Schema Object with JSON Schema, and reconcile `nullable` with JSON Schema semantics. Allow a straightforward translation from `nullable` in OpenAPI to type arrays in JSON Schema. Further details follow. A Schema Object allows values of any data type, unless the type is restricted by the `type` keyword. The `type` keyword restricts the schema to a single data type, which can be `"string"`, `"number"`, `"integer"`, `"boolean"`, `"array"`, or `"object"`, but cannot be `"null"`. Some APIs restrict values to a single data type, but also allow explicit null values. OpenAPI Schema Objects can allow explicit null values by combining the `type` and `nullable` keywords. A `nullable` value of `true` modifies a typed schema to allow non-null values of a given type, and also allow `null`. This was the envisioned use case, and the primary motivation for introducing `nullable` into the OpenAPI 3.0 spec. There may be other possible usage scenarios or consequences of the `nullable` keyword, the way it is specified, or the way in which the spec may be interpreted or implemented. In our view, these other scenarios should be considered side effects or oversights. To the best of our knowledge, the `nullable` keyword was not intended for any purpose other than to allow `null` in a typed schema. `nullable: true` is an expanding assertion, meaning it has the effect of expanding the range of acceptable

By contrast, JSON Schema's central operating principle is constraint-based, where constraining assertions are cumulative, immutable, and each constraint has veto power to disallow some range of values. The semantics of constraining assertions are well-defined by JSON Schema and implemented in many JSON Schema validators and other tools. But JSON Schema doesn't have expanding assertions, so those well-defined semantics don't apply to `nullable`. To address this, we need to translate `nullable: true` into a constraining assertion. Otherwise, we would have to specify in detail how `nullable` interacts with constraining assertions like `enum` and with boolean applicators like `allOf` and `anyOf`. The documentation specifies that `nullable: false` is the default, but doesn't clearly state what that means. One reasonable interpretation suggests that null values are disallowed unless `nullable` is explicitly set to `true`. This breaks a fundamental rule of JSON Schema, which states that an empty object `{}` is a valid schema that permits all values, with no constraints. Breaking that rule takes OpenAPI's Schema Object even further out of alignment with JSON Schema's processing model. For example, if null values are disallowed by default, does the following `UTCDate` schema accept `null`? ```yaml components: schemas: OptionalDate: type: string format: date nullable: true UTCDate: allOf: $ref: "#/components/schemas/OptionalDate" not: type: string pattern: "^.Z.$" ``` `UTCDate` does not specify a type of its own, and does not directly specify `nullable: true`. So if `null` is disallowed by default, even for untyped schemas, then `UTCDate` won't accept nulls. If we want it to accept nulls, we have to repeat `nullable: true` in `UTCDate`. This is not at all intuitive for API designers, and it breaks with JSON Schema's rule that any value is allowed unless it's explicitly disallowed. On the other hand, we could say that `UTCDate` inherits `nullable: true` from `OptionalDate`, therefore null values are allowed. But this kind of inheritance logic is completely foreign to JSON Schema. So this behavior is also counterintuitive, though for a different reason. It's also difficult to implement. Any JSON Schema validator would need to be hacked in highly disruptive ways to retrofit this behavior. Or a preprocessor would have to be introduced to propagate the effect of `nullable: true` through the `*Of` inheritance hierarchy. Whichever semantics we choose, it gets very messy. In fact, the OpenAPI 3.0 specification doesn't explicitly say that untyped schemas disallow null values. Here are the relevant parts: Primitive data types in the OAS are based on the types supported by the JSON Schema Specification Wright Draft 00. Note that integer as a type is also supported and is defined as a JSON number without a fraction or exponent part. null is not supported as a type (see nullable for an alternative solution). Models are defined using the Schema Object, which is an extended subset of JSON Schema Specification Wright Draft 00. To say that null is "not supported as a type" would definitely disallow `type: "null"` in a schema object. But it doesn't necessarily mean that an untyped schema disallows null values. Allows sending a null value for the defined schema. Default value is false. This uses the word "allows," but there's no mention of

To say that `nullable: true` allows null where it would otherwise be prohibited, doesn't necessarily mean that `nullable: false` disallows null where it would otherwise be allowed. `nullable: true` modifies a typed schema by adding null to the allowed types. `nullable: false` could mean "no null values allowed" or it could just mean "no modification to the specified type assertion, if any." The following properties are taken from the JSON Schema definition but their definitions were adjusted to the OpenAPI Specification. type - Value MUST be a string. Multiple types via an array are not supported. There is no specified adjustment to the `type` property that disallows null values. So it should defer to the JSON Schema specification, which says that, in the absence of a `type` assertion, any valid JSON value is allowed. So the 3.0 spec is ambiguous about null values. It's not clear whether the spec intended to disallow null values by default, even in untyped schemas. This looks more like an accidental oversight, or an unfortunate choice of words, than a clear intention. Questions that are not answered by the current specification include the following: If a schema specifies `nullable: true` and `enum: .) Does an untyped schema (without a `type` keyword) allow null values by default? What effect, if any, does `nullable: true` have on an untyped schema? Can `allOf` be used to define a nullable subtype of a non-nullable base schema? (See .) Can `allOf` be used to define a non-nullable subtype of a nullable base schema? What is the correct translation of a nullable schema from OpenAPI into an equivalent JSON Schema? Is `null` allowed as the `default` value of a nullable schema? (See .) We propose to clarify the 3.0 specification in the next patch release, to resolve these questions and align OpenAPI's Schema Object with JSON Schema's well-defined, constraint-based semantics. In our view, and consistent with the original intent, `nullable` should have a very limited, well-defined scope. It should satisfy the primary use case, i.e. allowing `null` in a typed schema, with minimal side effects. This is the proposed replacement for the `nullable` definition: <hr> Field Name | Type | Description |::| <a name="schemaNullable"></a>nullable | `boolean` | A `true` value adds `"null"` to the allowed type specified by the `type` keyword, only if `type` is explicitly defined within the same Schema Object. Other Schema Object constraints retain their defined behavior, and therefore may disallow the use of `null` as a value. A `false` value leaves the specified or default `type` unmodified. The default value is `false`. <hr> According to the above specification, `nullable` only operates within a narrow scope, wherein its translation to JSON Schema is straightforward: `nullable` is only meaningful if its value is `true`. `nullable: true` is only meaningful in combination with a `type` assertion specified in the same Schema Object. `nullable` acts as a `type` modifier, allowing `null` in addition to the specified type. `nullable: true` operates within a single Schema Object. It does not "override" or otherwise compete with supertype or subtype schemas defined with `allOf` or other applicators. It cannot be directly "inherited" through those applicators, and it cannot be applied to an inherited `type` constraint. This also solves the issues of alignment with JSON Schema: Since `type` is a constraint, JSON Schema's constraint-based processing model is fully

Interactions between `type` and other constraining assertions and applicators are unambiguous, with each constraint having independent veto power. It is now clear that `nullable: false`, whether explicit or by default, does not prohibit null values. Consistent with JSON Schema, an empty object allows all values, including `null`. Following are answers to the questions posed above, assuming the proposed clarification is adopted: No. The `nullable: true` assertion folds into the `type` assertion, which presumably specifies `integer` or `number`. While the modified `type` now allows `null`, the `enum` does not. Consistent with JSON schema, a value conforms to the schema only if it is valid against all constraints. Any constraint, in this case `enum`, can cause a value to fail validation, even if that value meets all of the other constraints. Yes, an untyped schema allows null values, in addition to all other types. `nullable: true` has no effect, because null values are already allowed. And `nullable: false` has no effect because it just leaves the `type` constraint unmodified. No. Subtypes can add constraints, but not relax them. Yes. The subtype can specify a `type` without `nullable: true`, or can specify `not: {enum: [null]}`. A nullable type should translate into a type array with two string elements: the name of the type specified in the Schema Object, and `"null"`. Yes. For example, a Schema Object with `"type" : "string", "nullable" : true` would translate to a JSON Schema with `"type" : specified by OpenAPI 3.0: default - The default value represents what would be assumed by the consumer of the input as the value of the schema if one is not provided. Unlike JSON Schema, the value MUST conform to the defined type for the Schema Object defined at the same level. For example, if `type` is `string`, then `default` can be `"foo"` but cannot be `1`. Spec revisions through 3.0.2 are ambiguous as described above, so any possible clarification has the potential to break existing implementations. With the clarification of `nullable: false`, we think the risk of actual breakage is miniscule, because the current ambiguity only affects untyped Schema Objects, which by their nature leave a lot of room for unexpected values. Any implementation that relies on schema validation to prevent null values should use explicitly typed schemas, and typed schemas unambiguously disallow `null` unless `nullable` is `true`. There might be a somewhat greater risk of breakage by specifying the effect of `nullable: true` as a `type` modifier. A more heavy-handed interpretation of `nullable: true`, , would make it equivalent to `anyOf [s, {type: "null"}]` where `s` is the schema as specified (excluding `nullable`). This would allow nulls even where they would be prohibited by other schema keywords, like `enum`. But this interpretation introduces far greater complexity than the narrowly scoped `type` modifier. We are not aware of any OpenAPI schema validator that actually attempts this, and there is nothing in the OpenAPI spec that says `nullable` can override constraining assertions. has some history of other approaches considered along the way. The first attempt assumed that `nullable: false` would prohibit null values, and attempted to work around this while maintaining backward compatibility. On closer inspection, the specification does not say anything about `null` values being disallowed. So we believe our interpretation is correct, and highly advantageous in its alignment with JSON Schema.