Reserve registered namespace invalid

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
While implementing, I realized that we come up with any (in)valid decision point inside the registered namespace test. However, we don't have a place to test namespace things with a registered namespace that is invalid - i.e. not registered.

Describe the solution you'd like
I think it would be helpful to reserve the registered namespace invalid - comparable to the .invalid assignment in DNS.

Describe alternatives you've considered
Using random namespace that are not yet registered: You can't be sure that they won't be registered in the future.

Additional context
related to #802 (and oasis-tcs/csaf#1152 (Test 6.1.48))

This should also be done for the unregistered space (starts with x_invalid.)

SSVC

This should also be done for the unregistered space (starts with x_invalid.)

I tried adding x_invalid to the enumerated list, but it fails to validate against the NS pattern because it starts with x_ but does not contain a fragment. So right now #915 only adds invalid. (Which I understand is the point of it being invalid, but it breaks a unit test in a way that I can't investigate right now.

    def test_namespaced_create(self):
        # use the official namespace values
        for ns in NameSpace:
>           obj = _Namespaced(namespace=ns)
E           pydantic_core._pydantic_core.ValidationError: 1 validation error for _Namespaced
E           namespace
E             String should match pattern '^(?=.{3,1000}$)(x_([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?(\.([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?)+\#(([a-z]|[0-9]))+([.\-](([a-z]|[0-9]))+)*|[a-z]([a-z]|[0-9])([.\-]?(([a-z]|[0-9]))+)+(\#(([a-z]|[0-9]))+([.\-](([a-z]|[0-9]))+)*)?)((/|/(([a-zA-Z]{2,3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}){,2})?|[a-zA-Z]{4,8})(-[a-zA-Z]{4})?(-([a-zA-Z]{2}|[0-9]{3}))?(-(([a-zA-Z0-9]){5,8}|[0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9]){3}))*(-[0-9A-WY-Za-wy-z](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)*(-[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)?|[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+|i-default|i-mingo))((/((([a-zA-Z]{2,3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}){,2})?|[a-zA-Z]{4,8})(-[a-zA-Z]{4})?(-([a-zA-Z]{2}|[0-9]{3}))?(-(([a-zA-Z0-9]){5,8}|[0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9]){3}))*(-[0-9A-WY-Za-wy-z](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)*(-[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)?|[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+|i-default|i-mingo)|\.([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?(\.([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?)+\#(([a-z]|[0-9]))+([.\-](([a-z]|[0-9]))+)*|\.(([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?(\.([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?)+|([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?(\.([a-z]|[0-9])(((([a-z]|[0-9])|-)){,61}([a-z]|[0-9]))?)+\#(([a-z]|[0-9]))+([.\-](([a-z]|[0-9]))+)*)\$(([a-zA-Z]{2,3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}(-[a-zA-Z]{3}){,2})?|[a-zA-Z]{4,8})(-[a-zA-Z]{4})?(-([a-zA-Z]{2}|[0-9]{3}))?(-(([a-zA-Z0-9]){5,8}|[0-9]([a-zA-Z0-9]){3}))*(-[0-9A-WY-Za-wy-z](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)*(-[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+)?|[xX](-([a-zA-Z0-9]){2,8})+|i-default|i-mingo)))+)?)?$' [type=string_pattern_mismatch, input_value=<NameSpace.X_INVALID: 'x_invalid'>, input_type=NameSpace]
E               For further information visit https://errors.pydantic.dev/2.11/v/string_pattern_mismatch

@ahouseholder

@ahouseholder I should clarify: my idea was (in the first place) to add them in the documentation as "reserved" namespaces for special purpose - similar how we did this with example, test and with x_example

I guess we should make those reserved namespaces more consistent in the ways they are defined - if I look at example, test vs. x_example I guess I think the latter is more clear in its appearance.

I'm afraid I've lost the plot here. Is this issue requesting a code change or just documentation? If documentation, what are we changing in which files?

The documentation with x_example alone pre-dates the "all x_ must have a # fragment" requirement we added later.
My experience in trying to add x_invalid to the registered enum makes me suspect that x_example will also fail for the same reason.

Okay, so my current understanding is as follows:

In the namespace documentation, we will say something like "The namespaces invalid and x_invalid are reserved" with some explanation that this reservation is provided for testing purposes only, and that these will not pass object validators.
I'll add an explicit reject to the namespace validator method to explicitly reject these two strings even though they match the ns pattern.

fix #907 add reserved ns warning to docs

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

Reserve registered namespace `invalid` #907

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Reserve registered namespace invalid #907

Description

Activity

tschmidtb51 commented on Aug 25, 2025

ahouseholder commented on Aug 26, 2025

tschmidtb51 commented on Aug 26, 2025

ahouseholder commented on Aug 27, 2025

ahouseholder commented on Sep 9, 2025

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

Reserve registered namespace `invalid` #907