Omit extra data in schemaUtils

[MarekBodingerBA]

Reasons for making this change

fixes #4081

For now I implemented the draft version (code and markdown documentation is not finished yet). Would you be able to look if everything seems alright with the progress so far?

Checklist

• I'm updating documentation
  • I've checked the rendering of the Markdown text I've added
• I'm adding or updating code
  • I've added and/or updated tests. I've run npm run test:update to update snapshots, if needed.
  • I've updated docs if needed
  • I've updated the changelog with a description of the PR
• I'm adding a new feature
  • I've updated the playground with an example use of the feature

[heath-freenome]

Looks like your tests are failing

[heath-freenome]

Suggested change

	import _pick from 'lodash/pick';
	import _get from 'lodash/get';
	import _isEmpty from 'lodash/isEmpty';
	import toPathSchema from './toPathSchema';
	import _pick from 'lodash/pick';
	import _get from 'lodash/get';
	import _isEmpty from 'lodash/isEmpty';
	import toPathSchema from './toPathSchema';

[heath-freenome]

Consider adding JSDoc

[heath-freenome]

@MarekBodingerBA There is one failing tests, and you also have to get the test coverage back up to 100% given the new code you wrote

[MarekBodingerBA]

@MarekBodingerBA There is one failing tests, and you also have to get the test coverage back up to 100% given the new code you wrote

Of course, I am still working on it, it's a draft afterall . :)

[heath-freenome]

@MarekBodingerBA There is one failing tests, and you also have to get the test coverage back up to 100% given the new code you wrote

Of course, I am still working on it, it's a draft afterall . :)

Awesome! how do you feel it is going? Are you needing any help?

[MarekBodingerBA]

@MarekBodingerBA There is one failing tests, and you also have to get the test coverage back up to 100% given the new code you wrote

Of course, I am still working on it, it's a draft afterall . :)

Awesome! how do you feel it is going? Are you needing any help?

Actually, the failing test is a bug in the original code that I've only migrated and created a test that found this.

I would probably like to disable the test and create a separate issue for this (as there would be no regression). The thing is, that I find getFieldNames implementation a bit overblown (and buggy in this case) for what it does, but I think it is better do to in a separate issue and don't mix those two together.

[heath-freenome]

@MarekBodingerBA There is one failing tests, and you also have to get the test coverage back up to 100% given the new code you wrote

Of course, I am still working on it, it's a draft afterall . :)

Awesome! how do you feel it is going? Are you needing any help?

Actually, the failing test is a bug in the original code that I've only migrated and created a test that found this.

I would probably like to disable the test and create a separate issue for this (as there would be no regression). The thing is, that I find getFieldNames implementation a bit overblown (and buggy in this case) for what it does, but I think it is better do to in a separate issue and don't mix those two together.

That is fine, as long as we get that bug fixed soon after we merge this