chore(blog): the reference rabbit hole

[jonaslagoni]

Description
This blog post explains why and how the following issues came to be:

• spec #650, highlight the discrepancies when the Reference Object can be used.
• spec #649, tries to solve the core issue that $ref means two different things, depending on when it's used.
• spec #655, what do you do when encountering $schema and Message Object schemaFormat
• parser-js #405, highlight that the parser accurately validates incorrect AsyncAPI documents, because it bundles references before validating.
• parser-js #404, highlight that the parser allows for keywords to be defined together with $ref and are not being ignored.
• parser-js #403, highlight that the parser does not care about $id in the Schema Object when it should.

[netlify]

✔️ Deploy Preview for asyncapi-website ready!
Built without sensitive environment variables

🔨 Explore the source changes: 8afcb41

🔍 Inspect the deploy log: https://app.netlify.com/sites/asyncapi-website/deploys/61a5fb86af780b0007550239

😎 Browse the preview: https://deploy-preview-461--asyncapi-website.netlify.app

[smoya]

Few nitpicks, some more useful than others to me, especially for readability.
Looks cool otherwise ! 👍

[jonaslagoni]

Removing request for review for a second, need to rewrite parts of it.

[jonaslagoni]

Okay, I think it is good shape now 😅 Sorry for making you double review it @smoya 🙇

[quetzalliwrites]

Sorry @jonaslagoni !! I thought I had finished the review, now I see I left the comments pending! smh 🤦‍♀️

Ok, doing it right now :)

[quetzalliwrites]

@derberg I have left my review successfully this time 😀

[jonaslagoni]

Quality review as always @alequetzalli @smoya, addressed all your comments 🙂

[smoya]

LGTM!! 🚀 🌔

[quetzalliwrites]

LGMT 🚀 🌟

[derberg]

review of @smoya and @alequetzalli were dismissed but only because I pushed publish date update, so I approve and we can merge. We release this article today

[derberg]

@jonaslagoni before we merge, are you 100% sure about the article title? me myself and I bet others too, decide to click on a link and read an article when I more or less know what it is about. Tbh The Reference Rabbit Hole tells me nothing. Wouldn't it be better to have The JSON Reference ($ref) Rabbit Hole?

[jonaslagoni]

@jonaslagoni before we merge, are you 100% sure about the article title? me myself and I bet others too, decide to click on a link and read an article when I more or less know what it is about. Tbh The Reference Rabbit Hole tells me nothing. Wouldn't it be better to have The JSON Reference ($ref) Rabbit Hole?

Not sure, hate figuring out titles, this one just seemed natural. Especially since it is not really only about JSON Schema reference, but both 🤔 Sooo, not sure 😅

[derberg]

@jonaslagoni leaving it up to you, just tell me if I should release or not. Just sharing it on reddit or hackernews with this title will not increase much reach IMHO, which is fine if the article is purely for AsyncAPI community only

[smoya]

@jonaslagoni before we merge, are you 100% sure about the article title? me myself and I bet others too, decide to click on a link and read an article when I more or less know what it is about. Tbh The Reference Rabbit Hole tells me nothing. Wouldn't it be better to have The JSON Reference ($ref) Rabbit Hole?

Not sure, hate figuring out titles, this one just seemed natural. Especially since it is not really only about JSON Schema reference, but both 🤔 Sooo, not sure 😅

What about something more descriptive then, something in the style of "JSON Schema $ref is not JSON Reference" (shouldnt be this one, it is just an example of the style)

[derberg]

yo, I now read the article. Sorry, but tbh it is super specific to AsyncAPI, very technical and requires deep AsyncAPI understanding, so the title can be as it is as I don't see a point of putting it on reddit or hackernews but only on official AsyncAPI social accounts and their followers.

Just please fix the broken link and I think we can go:

[jonaslagoni]

@derberg done.