dry-rb/chat

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

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

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

I mean optional key, ok I will report some use case

Hannes Nevalainen

@kwando

This message was deleted

class UserSchema < Dry::Validation::Schema
  key(:age) do |age|
    age.filled? & age.int? & age.gt?(18) & age.lt?(100)
  end
end

@solnic ^^ that should work right?

Krzysztof Wawer

@wafcio

@kwando how do you invoke this schema ?

Hannes Nevalainen

@kwando

UserSchema.new.messages(user)

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity