Fix verbose example to use $defs

[garethsb]

Follows on from 5b08871.

[garethsb]

This Verbose example is also missing the "error" messages given in the matching Basic and Detailed examples, e.g.

json-schema-spec/jsonschema-core.xml

Lines 2750 to 2785 in c5a6078

	{
	"valid": false,
	"errors": [
	{
	"keywordLocation": "#",
	"instanceLocation": "#",
	"error": "A subschema had errors."
	},
	{
	"keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref",
	"absoluteKeywordLocation":
	"https://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point",
	"instanceLocation": "#/1",
	"error": "A subschema had errors."
	},
	{
	"keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref/required",
	"absoluteKeywordLocation":
	"https://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point/required",
	"instanceLocation": "#/1",
	"error": "Required property 'y' not found."
	},
	{
	"keywordLocation": "#/items/$ref/additionalProperties",
	"absoluteKeywordLocation":
	"https://example.com/polygon#/$defs/point/additionalProperties",
	"instanceLocation": "#/1/z",
	"error": "Additional property 'z' found but was invalid."
	},
	{
	"keywordLocation": "#/minItems",
	"instanceLocation": "#",
	"error": "Expected at least 3 items but found 2"
	}
	]
	}

. Is that an oversight? Potentially a little confusing for a Verbose example to not be as verbose as it could be?

[handrews]

This looks great to me- I'm just leaving it open to make sure @gregsdennis sees the question about "error"

Although for something like "error": "Additional property 'z' found but was invalid." we recently discussed on slack that for this sort of low-level output, it would be more accurate for the error to be about the field matching additionalProperties but failing the false schema.

The idea being that people will probably write more human-friendly tools for analyzing verbose output rather than reading raw JSON, so they could render that error however they like. But noting the error against the false schema is more consistent with how additionalProperties is actually supposed to function as an applicator keyword.

@gregsdennis what are your feelings on this? We can open a separate issue if needed and merge this for now.

[gregsdennis]

Probably an oversight. I have no strong feels about fixing it here or in another PR. Additionally, I don't think that I required having an error property for applicators. Maybe I did; I don't recall, and I can't be bothered to go look it up right now.

it would be more accurate for the error to be about the field matching additionalProperties but failing the false schema

👍