scene.coordinateTransformations path optional for input and output

[will-moore]

Fixes #148 (hopefully!)

The scene uses coordinate_transformations.schema#/$defs/coordinateTransformation for transforms, which only requires type to be specified for transforms.

The scene.schema then adds input and output objects, both of which only require name.
This leaves path as optional for both input and output objects (instead of being required for input objects).

To test, we can use the validator modified at ome/ome-ngff-validator#80 to accept a URL to a specific schemas location. Using that to point at this branch, we can see that the sample from #148 above is passing validation (just looking at the top-level scene, not the child images).

https://deploy-preview-80--ome-ngff-validator.netlify.app/?source=https://livingobjects.ebi.ac.uk/idr/zarr/test-data/v0.6.dev4/idr0050/4995115_output_to_ms.zarr&schemas=https://raw.githubusercontent.com/will-moore/ngff-spec/refs/heads/scene_coordinateTransformations_input_path_optional/schemas/

[github-actions]

Automated Review URLs

• Readthedocs

[jo-mueller]

@will-moore I think that's ok. Could you add the json of the scene file that was previously failing to the tests folder? You need to remove the outer attributes field for it to work though.

[jo-mueller]

Additionally we could restructure the coordinate_transformations.schema slightly to just contain a bunch of $refs (i.e., inputoutput, coordinateTransformation (singular) and coordinateTransformations (plural) rather than defining the latter at the top-level. That would maybe make the structure a bit cleaner.

[will-moore]

@jo-mueller I am reluctant to refactor the schemas too much as I'm not very familiar with all the moving parts and relationships. Takes a while to get my head around them!

I've added a validator test in description above

[jo-mueller]

@will-moore

I am reluctant to refactor the schemas too much as I'm not very familiar with all the moving parts and relationships. Takes a while to get my head around them!

fair :) I sent you a PR to add the tested (repviously invalid) json to the tests here. looks good otherwise from my side.