Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@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
damn
it’s gonna be silly to have Schema::Result containing a…validation result
NAMING
;(
otoh it should be private
we want access to successes and failures
@timriley btw how does successes sound?
Tim Riley
@timriley
Sounds fine to me.
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
ok :)
Tim Riley
@timriley
It’s clear.
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
I’m about to break things /cc @timriley @kwando
timriley @timriley stops upgrading ;)
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
schema.messages(input) => schema.(input).messages
YOU CAN UPGRADE USING sed OK?!
Tim Riley
@timriley
oh, this is a nice upgrade!
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
almost there with refactor
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
so, for fun, I stubbed I18n in AM::V and ran the benchmark
Calculating -------------------------------------
ActiveModel::Validations
                       628.000  i/100ms
      dry-validation     1.948k i/100ms
-------------------------------------------------
ActiveModel::Validations
                          5.933k (± 1.5%) i/s -     30.144k
      dry-validation     20.386k (± 7.6%) i/s -    103.244k

Comparison:
      dry-validation:    20385.8 i/s
ActiveModel::Validations:     5932.6 i/s - 3.44x slower
this is AM::V WITHOUT COERCION AND WITHOUT I18n
BUT
dry-v is WITH coercion and WITH message compilation
and it’s ~3.5x faster :joy:
Tim Riley
@timriley
:tada:
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
@timriley @AMHOL dryrb/dry-validation#23
as discussed with Andy we will be able to configure error compiler per schema, so ie you can set up a schema with I18n-compatible compiler and your localized errors will be used
Tim Riley
@timriley
This makes a lot of sense.
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
there’s a bit more to it, but it’s a bigger subject: validation hints :)
in the near future we’re gonna have a way to generate user-friendly representation of validation rules, even for those that were not used in the validation process
Tim Riley
@timriley
Yeah, that sounds handy!
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
so ie when you have age.int? & age.gt?(18) and it turned out to be an empty string we still need to provide meaningful info to the user
since we have access to all the rules we can simply use the same technique to produce validation hints (as I call it)
we can automatically drop type expectations, since it’s too low level IMO, and just do things like gt?(18) => “age must be greater than 18”
Tim Riley
@timriley
Wonderful :)
Piotr Solnica
@solnic
we can actually be pretty precise here, and take into consideration whether or not a value was present
so ie pattern match on input and have things like “oops, you forgot to fill in age"
or “hey, sorry but your age must be greater than 18, you gotta wait 2 years” :D