Where communities thrive

Join over 1.5M+ people
Join over 100K+ communities
Free without limits
Create your own community

Explore more communities

dry-rb/chat

WE MOVED TO ZULIP => https://dry-rb.zulipchat.com <=

People

Repo info

Activity

13:51

kirin121 starred dry-rb/dry-container
10:56

davydovanton on performance-improvements-for-rack-monitorring

(compare)
10:55

davydovanton on master

Improve memory allocation for R… Merge pull request #34 from dry… (compare)
10:55

davydovanton closed #34
02:25

DaiAoki starred dry-rb/dry-types
Apr 01 14:39

davydovanton commented #34
Apr 01 14:24

dry-bot commented #34
Apr 01 14:19

davydovanton synchronize #34
Apr 01 14:19

davydovanton on performance-improvements-for-rack-monitorring

Improve memory allocation for R… (compare)
Apr 01 14:17

davydovanton on runtime-deps

(compare)
Apr 01 14:17

davydovanton on master

Fix dry-events dependency in th… Merge pull request #36 from dry… (compare)
Apr 01 14:17

davydovanton closed #36
Apr 01 14:15

davydovanton opened #36
Apr 01 14:15

davydovanton on runtime-deps

Fix dry-events dependency in th… (compare)
Apr 01 10:59

solnic commented #35
Apr 01 10:50

flash-gordon commented #35
Apr 01 10:43

davydovanton synchronize #34
Apr 01 10:43

davydovanton on performance-improvements-for-rack-monitorring

Improve memory allocation for R… (compare)
Apr 01 10:27

dry-bot on master

[devtools] sync (compare)
Apr 01 10:27

solnic on broken-master

(compare)

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

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

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

I think it's just unfamiliar territory, from what I've seen you don't tend to touch AST until you start looking at compilers and sth?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

Yeah only compilers deal with then

Them even

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

How in dry-validation can I construct rule for attribute which is optional but if exists then it should be in specific format ? I am trying to do it in this way: id.nil? | (id.str? & id.format?(/.../)) but I receive NoMethodError: undefined method `to_ary' for true:TrueClass

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@wafcio id.filled? & id.format?(/.../) should suffice

Although your example should work too

So pls report an issue

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

I used str? because I checked examples: a) without id b) with number id - incorrect c) with id as uuid (text) - correct

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

issue added dryrb/dry-validation#13

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@wafcio thanks. I'll fix that

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

ok thanks, I will bypass this problem with write own predicate

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

I think it will be good to add optional attribute, right now each time key method is forcing to have specific key in attributes

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@wafcio optional attribute or optional value? Those two are not the same

For optional attribute/key we could have sth like key(:foo).optional do ... end

Please report an issue about that