Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
  • 18:02
    ekremkaraca starred dry-rb/dry-system
  • 11:13
    dilcom commented #375
  • 10:29
    flash-gordon commented #375
  • 10:08
    wuarmin starred dry-rb/dry-configurable
  • 10:02
    dilcom commented #375
  • 10:02
    dilcom commented #375
  • 08:11
    flash-gordon commented #375
  • 07:54
    flash-gordon commented #115
  • 05:40
    wpzero starred dry-rb/dry-monads
  • 05:30
    dilcom opened #375
  • 02:18
    johnmaxwell edited #115
  • 02:18
    johnmaxwell edited #115
  • Dec 08 23:10
    johnmaxwell labeled #115
  • Dec 08 23:10
    johnmaxwell opened #115
  • Dec 07 14:03

    dry-bot on master

    [devtools] config sync (compare)

  • Dec 07 10:01
    Travis dry-rb/dry-view (master) errored (636)
  • Dec 07 09:58
    Travis dry-rb/dry-view (master) errored (635)
  • Dec 07 09:56

    dry-bot on master

    [devtools] config sync (compare)

  • Dec 07 09:56

    dry-bot on master

    [devtools] config sync (compare)

  • Dec 07 09:56

    dry-bot on master

    [devtools] config sync (compare)

Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL btw, uniqueness validation backed by a db should be very simple to achieve now
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Nice, guess it will still need a global connection?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
basically include App::Import(‘persistence.relations.users’) and def unique?(key, value); users.unique?(key => value);end
injected from container
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Ahh OK, so we need to make a new predicate for each unique constraint, makes sense :+1:
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL well, it’s just a key rule
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Could probably do some hocus pocus to make a generic one, but would probably be a bad idea
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
key(:email, &:unique?) will partially apply :email to the predicate
then value will be passed
so it’s gonna Just Work™
@AMHOL I will do the hocus pocus in rom-model for that
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Yeah, I was more meaning say if you wanted a constraint on users#email and then another on credential#token for example
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
but a generic orm-agnostic/db-lib-agnostic predicate would be insane IMO
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Ahh, cool
Yep, v.bad idea
Nice work BTW, looking awesome
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL thanks man, I’m close to cover all the use cases :)
but I’m gonna stop now, I feel confident enough that this is a good direction that more advanced stuff can be done later
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Cool, I wish I could see a before and after on your million line validators lol
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I gotta focus on rodakase and the book now
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
You written any of the book yet?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL ain’t gonna happen, which is unfortunate, I’m leaving the project this month
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Ahh, that's a shame
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@AMHOL I’m about to start. first pages will be written on Friday
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
Nice :)
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I need to come up with a rough plan first, but I have “intro” in my head so that’d be a start
I also need to figure out leanpub :)
90 stars on dry-validation btw :sparkles:
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
:D
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
it’s been a trending repo on github since last week, every day, I actually check it daily for whatever reason :joy:
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
lol to see if any of your repos are there ;)
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
that’s very likely
Andy Holland
@AMHOL
It is cool tho
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
morning
Hannes Nevalainen
@kwando
hola!
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
how would you call an object that is a result of running validation?
@AMHOL @timriley ^^ ???
hola @kwando :)
leaning towards Schema::Outcome
Hannes Nevalainen
@kwando
whats wrong with Schema::Result?
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
we have Validation::Result already
which is a result-per-rule
and we have Validation::Result::Set which is a result per rule-set
I actually need another concept, an array of result objects
no idea how to call it either
ok I know what to do
Tim Riley
@timriley
“Result” seems most natural, but since it’s already in use, “Outcome” isn’t too bad.
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
Validation::Result will become the enumerable containing Result::Value and Result::Set
Tim Riley
@timriley
“Product” is another possibility but it’s a term that’s already too loaded
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
question is, how to call abstract class for value and set lol