I'll take the red pill
validateallthethings
Whoops
Any idea when dry-data and dry-validation will be ready enough to use in place of Virtus?
@solnic
I stopped using virtus already fwiw
philosophy is quite different than in virtus
so it requires a different approach
which is why it cannot be treated as a replacement
It's hard to imagine anything simpler
it's not a replacement for virtus models
ie dry-v builds up a coercible hash using dry-d for Schema::Form, it does form coercions for you and symbolizes keys
there are different types of hashes in dry-d, so you have a strict one, a non-strict one, non-strict with symbolized-keys (that's the one that dry-v is using)
not just wrt type primitives but also any possible constraints
there’s a lot tbd to improve errors coming from dry-d though, it’s a bit rough right now
So how would you do something simple like this in drd? https://gist.github.com/cmrichards/364920a5ffd6c49420c5
class BarcodeSchema < Dry::Validation::Schema::Form
key(:barcode, &:filled?)
key(:job_number) { |v| v.none? | v.int? }
key(:sample_number) { |v| v.none? | v.int? }
rule(:barcode_only) do
rule(:barcode) ^ (rule(:job_number) | rule(:sample_number))
end
def self.messages
Dry::Validation::Messages.default.merge(
en: { errors: {
barcode_only: 'Can only enter data into barcode OR job/sample fields, not both'
}}
)
end
end
@cmrichards something like that will be possible starting from dry-v 0.4.0
I’m not sure if people will like using logic in the long term so maybe we can introduce higher-level macros, but I dunno, I kinda like it, forces you to think in terms of pure logic
and you do BarcodeScheme.new(params[..]) ?
uhm, actually this is not an equivalent of your example, seems like we need a negation support there