I'm writing down some XSD file for webservice communication between an application and sharepoint.. I'm trying to make my parameters "REQUIRED" but even if i put minOccurs to 1, they could be not specified..
How can i resolve this problem? Here's one of mine XSD:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<xs:schema id="RemoveGroup"
targetNamespace="http://tempuri.org/RemoveGroup.xsd"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
xmlns="http://tempuri.org/RemoveGroup.xsd"
xmlns:mstns="http://tempuri.org/RemoveGroup.xsd"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
>
<xs:element name="RemoveGroup">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="tt_group_id" type="xs:long" />
<xs:element name="tt_network_id" type="xs:string"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
I hope there's a way not to write down houndred of "if (input.Parameter != null)" ...
Using minOccurs="1" at either the <element/> or <sequence/> level is the correct thing to do. What specific error are you getting?
UPDATE
Actually within a <sequence/> parsers should expect exactly one instance of an element
UPDATE
Your parser may be emitting errors as events which you need to handle in order to capture the errors - many common parsers have this behaviour.
Something which could cause an error is a null value in the long simple type - this type does not allow blanks. If you want to indicate that nulls are allowed you should use nil=true from namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance.
Related
I am trying to design a XML schema where a certain element may alternatively hold either a single element belonging to a substitution group or a collection of certain elements which I want to be free-order (like in "all").
Due to the limitations on the "all" type of groups I cannot nest it into a "choice", so I tried a design which is similar to the following:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:vc="http://www.w3.org/2007/XMLSchema-versioning" elementFormDefault="qualified" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" vc:minVersion="1.1">
<xs:element name="X" abstract="true"/>
<xs:element name="X1" substitutionGroup="X"/>
<xs:element name="X2" substitutionGroup="X"/>
<xs:element name="Y">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:all>
<xs:element ref="X" minOccurs="0"/>
<xs:element name="Z1" minOccurs="0" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="Z2" minOccurs="0" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="Z3" minOccurs="0" type="xs:string"/>
</xs:all>
<xs:assert test="not(schema-element(X)) or not(Z1 or Z2 or Z3)"/>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
When the schema file is validated, I get the following error:
File C:\whereabouts\xsd-assertion-problem.xsd is not valid.
Assertion 'not(schema-element(X)) or not(Z)' is no valid XPath 2.0 expression.
Error location: xs:schema / xs:element / xs:complexType / xs:assert
Details
XPST0008: Element name not found in static context's in-scope element declarations
as-props-correct.2: Assertion 'not(schema-element(X)) or not(Z)' is no valid XPath 2.0 expression.
The question is: what is wrong here and how to fix it? When I read (https://www.w3.org/TR/xpath-31/#ERRXPST0008)[the description of XPath error condition], it explicitly excludes "an ElementName in an ElementTest", which should be the case here, so static analysis should not fail here. Or am I wrong?
Note that the substitution group for X is open for extension and finding all locations where references to X are made may be difficult, that's why I strongly prefer to use a schema-element-based test.
On the other hand, while writing Z1 or Z2 or Z3 is also cumbersome, these elements are local, so this solution is more or less acceptable. Of course, if there are better ideas, they are welcome!
Just in case, I rely on the Altova engine.
So I found this post which is very similar to what I want to achieve, but I can't quite figure out if it's not possible to do what I am attempting, or if I'm just missing something...
Use XML Schema to extend an element rather than a complexType
The gist is that I have an XSD that contains a defined Element. I would prefer not to edit this original xsd file. Is there any way for me to extend the Element so that I also can add my own attributes, "attributeC"?
The other post creates a new complexType of fooType, and places the element inside of it, and extends fooType to contain more elements. By doing so, they are able to achieve an Element that contains fooElement, and two other added elements. The issue is that I'd like to add to the Element itself, not add to the element at the same level.
XSD1
<xs:schema xmlns:bas="http://www.base.com"
xmlns="https://www.adding.com"
attributeFormDefault="qualified"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
targetNamespace="https://www.adding.com"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:import schemaLocation="XSD2.xsd" namespace="http://www.base.com" />
<xs:complexType name="FileSpecType">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element ref="bas:FileSpec"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="FullFileSpecType">
<xs:complexContent mixed="false">
<xs:extension base="FileSpecType">
<xs:attribute name="attributeC" type="xs:string" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="FileSpec" type="FileSpecType" />
This code ends up generating a new FileSpec
<FileSpec AttributeC="attCval" />>
<bas:FileSpec/>
</FileSpec>
What I want to achieve is more like...
<bas:FileSpec AttributeA="attAval" AttributeB="attBval" AttributeC="attCval/>
Can anybody point me in the right direction to solve my issues?
I'm thinking I could define my own dataType=FileSpec and add my own reference to external attributes, but that'd require manually copying over each attribute that exists in my original XSD2 FileSpec so I'd prefer to avoid that if possible. Then I think I could take that new FileSpec that I created and redefine the older FileSpec with it. Is this possible to do? It sounds like a lot of work that must have a simpler solution.
Its somewhat unclear what you are trying to do, if this does not cover it, please post the schema you are including as well as the XML you are trying to produce including the containing element.
You can extend an existing xs:complexType like this.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<!--Created with Liquid Studio 2020 (https://www.liquid-technologies.com)-->
<xs:schema elementFormDefault="qualified" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:complexType name="BaseType">
<xs:attribute name="attributeA" type="xs:string" />
</xs:complexType>
<xs:complexType name="ExtendedType">
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base="BaseType">
<xs:attribute name="attributeB" />
</xs:extension>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="RootElm">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="BaseElm" type="BaseType" />
<xs:element name="ExtendedElm" type="ExtendedType" />
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
This allows you to produce XML that looks like this
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- Created with Liquid Studio 2020 (https://www.liquid-technologies.com) -->
<RootElm xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<BaseElm attributeA="XX" />
<ExtendedElm attributeA="YY" attributeB="ZZ" />
</RootElm>
There is another way to make use of the ExtendedType when ever its valid to use a BaseType
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!-- Created with Liquid Studio 2020 (https://www.liquid-technologies.com) -->
<RootElm xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">
<BaseElm xsi:type="ExtendedType" attributeB="XX" attributeA="YY" />
<ExtendedElm attributeA="XX" attributeB="YY" />
</RootElm>
Notice the xsi:type="ExtendedType" in the BaseElm, this tells the XML processor that this element actually contains data for the ExtendedType.
I have a XML schema that defines an element that may be either base64 text or an xop:Include element. Currently, this is defined as a base64Binary type:
<xs:element name="PackageBinary" type="xs:base64Binary" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
When I insert the xop:Include element instead, it looks like this:
<PackageBinary>
<xop:Include xmlns:xop="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include" href="http://google.com/data.bin" />
</PackageBinary>
But this gives an XML validation error (I'm using .NET validator):
The element 'mds:xml-schema:soap11:PackageBinary' cannot contain child
element 'http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include:Include' because the
parent element's content model is text only.
This makes sense because it's not base64 content, but I thought this was common practice...? Is there any way to support this in the schema? (We have existing product that supports this syntax but we are adding validation now.)
The best I could come up with was to create a complex type that allowed any tags but was also tagged as "mixed" so it allowed text. This doesn't explicitly declare the content as base64, but it does let it pass validation.
<xs:complexType name="PackageBinaryInner" mixed="true">
<xs:sequence>
<xs:any minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="1"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
<xs:element name="PackageBinary" type="PackageBinaryInner" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"/>
The solution I've found is like this:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<xs:schema targetNamespace="http://example.org"
elementFormDefault="qualified"
xmlns="http://example.org"
xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
xmlns:xop="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include">
<xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include"
schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include"/>
<xs:complexType name="PackageBinary" mixed="true">
<xs:all>
<xs:element ref="xop:Include"/>
</xs:all>
</xs:complexType>
I saw this in an xml document that appeared to allow validation - basically the attribute xmlns:xop="..." did the trick:
<SomeElement xmlns:xop="http://www.w3.org/2004/08/xop/include/" id="465390" type="html">
<SomeElementSummaryURL>https://file.someurl.com/SomeImage.html</SomeElementSummaryURL>
<xop:Include href="cid:1111111#someurl.com"/>
</SomeElement >
I have the following in a schema:
<xs:element name="td">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:complexContent>
<xs:extension base="cell.type"/>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:complexType name="cell.type" mixed="true">
<xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element ref="p"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
Some parsers allow PCDATA directly in the element, while others don't. There's something in the XSD recommendation (3.4.2) that says when a complex type has complex content, and neither has a mixed attribute, the effective mixed is false. That means the only way mixed content could be in effect is if the extension of cell.type causes the mixed="true" to be inherited.
Could someone more familiar with schemas comment on the correct interpretation?
(BTW: if I had control of the schema I would move the mixed="true" to the element definition, but that's not my call.)
Anyone reading my question might want to read this thread also (by Damien). It seems my answer isn't entirely right: parsers/validators don't handle mixed attribute declarations on base/derived elements the same way.
Concerning extended complex types, sub-section 1.4.3.2.2.1 of section 3.4.6 in part 1 of W3C's XML Schema specification says that
Both [derived and base] {content type}s must be mixed or both must be element-only.
So yes, it is inherited (or more like you cannot overwrite it—same thing in the end).
Basically, what you've described is the desired (and as far as I'm concerned) the most logical behavior.
I've created a simple schema to run a little test with Eclipse's XML tools.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:element name="c">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:complexContent mixed="false">
<xs:extension base="a"/>
</xs:complexContent>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
<xs:complexType name="a" mixed="true">
<xs:sequence minOccurs="0" maxOccurs="unbounded">
<xs:element name="b"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:schema>
The above schema is valid, in the sense that not Eclipse's nor W3C's "official" XML Schema validator notices any issues with it.
The following XML passes validation against the aforementioned schema.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<c xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:noNamespaceSchemaLocation="test.xsd">
x
<b/>
y
</c>
So basically you cannot overwrite the mixedness of a complex base type. To support this statement further, try and swap the base and dervied types' mixedness. In that case the XML fails to validate, because the derived type won't be mixed as it (yet again) cannot overwrite the base's mixedness.
You've also said that
Some parsers allow PCDATA directly in the element, while others don't
It couldn't hurt to clarify which parsers are you talking about. A good parser shouldn't fail when it encounters mixed content. A validating parser, given the proper schema, will fail if it encounters mixed content when the schema does not allow it.
I reading articles about XSD on w3schools and here many examples. For example this:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
<xs:element name="note">
<xs:complexType>
<xs:sequence>
<xs:element name="to" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="from" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="heading" type="xs:string"/>
<xs:element name="body" type="xs:string"/>
</xs:sequence>
</xs:complexType>
</xs:element>
</xs:schema>
But after I tried put this .xsd file in xjc - I see error log, dome like this:
The prefix "xs" for element "xs:schema" is not bound...
But all work correct when I change xs on xsd prefix.
So, can somebody, clarify for me what is different between xs and xsd?
Maybe, one prefix - it is old version and other for new version...
xs and xsd are XML prefixes used with qualified names; each prefix must be associated with a namespace. The association is done with an attribute that looks like xmlns:xs="...". xs and xsd are most common for XML Schema documents.
Should you choose s or ns1, it shouldn't make any difference to any tool for your scenario.
The error is not caused by your XML Schema file. I suspect there might be something else in your setup, maybe a custom binding file. Please check that or post additional information.