Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 09:29
    blasterun starred dry-rb/dry-monads
  • 08:34
    flash-gordon closed #115
  • 08:34
    flash-gordon commented #115
  • 08:31

    flash-gordon on v1.3.3

    (compare)

  • 08:30

    flash-gordon on master

    Bump version to 1.3.3 (compare)

  • 08:30

    flash-gordon on master

    Update CHANGELOG (compare)

  • Dec 10 23:46
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:54

    flash-gordon on master

    Halt with mutable backtrace Ex… Merge pull request #116 from jo… (compare)

  • Dec 10 21:54
    flash-gordon closed #116
  • Dec 10 21:54
    flash-gordon commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:49
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:47
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:43
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:39
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:31
    johnmaxwell commented #116
  • Dec 10 21:22
    flash-gordon commented #116
  • Dec 10 19:41
    johnmaxwell opened #116
  • Dec 10 19:36
  • Dec 10 10:24
    krautcat starred dry-rb/dry-view
  • Dec 10 10:24
    krautcat starred dry-rb/dry-types
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Nice, so that's separate for when you want coercion too?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
yes
it still blindly symbolizes all keys, gotta work on that part now
maybe it’s not a bad idea to add key coercion to dry-data hash
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Explicitly?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
yes
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Can't think of any reason not to
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
heh adding support for passing a block to predicates in the dsl was too easy, it’s a very good sign #happypanda
to make the dsl more concise I’m considering this now:
key(:address).hash? do |address|
  address.key(:age).int? { |value| value.gt?(18) }
end
@AMHOL WDYT? ^
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
this would be less trivial to implement though :)
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
As opposed to:
key(:address).hash? do |address|
  address.key(:age).int? & address.key(:age).gt?(18)
end
?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
not exactly
type check is kind-of special
first of all you specify the expection for the type so we can infer coercion logic from it
secondly it’s the very first check that needs to be done before we can do anything else with the value
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Ahh OK
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
so having it outside of the block would make sense
I dunno, will see, not gonna do that now, just wondering
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
So the predicate would be a pre-requisite to the validations running inside of the block?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
yes
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
That makes sense :+1:
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I just added support for passing blocks to predicate checks, which does the very same thing, but for type-check you get one more level of nesting
hence my thought about moving it to the outer block
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Yep, that works for me
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
you can do value.int? & value.gt?(18) and the equivalent of this is using a block like this; value.int? { value.gt?(18) }
in general a block == AND
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
So it's like a normal AND where the right only evaluates if the left passes?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
yes
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
:+1:
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
@solnic WDYT to removing the message processor from dry-validation?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL dunno yet what to do with it tbh
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
@solnic I'll push what I've got so far, see what you think
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL sure
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
dryrb/dry-validation@cbc17e5
So the idea is that we can have a dry-validation-i18n gem for error messages
BTW, now I've got to grips with it a lot more, you've done a fantastic job so far
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL no idea what "to grip" means :D
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
:laughing: idioms
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
dammit mate
;)
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
To get to grips = to get a better understanding :)
So if I get to grips with {something}, I have a better understanding of {something} than I did before
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
Oh ok :) it is really simple piece of code tbh. Ast with visitor pattern is really simple. Probably not popular but that is ok
Aaahhh good
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Yeah, perhaps to you ;)
Ast is complicated stuff
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I thought so too when I saw it for the first time