dry-rb/chat

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

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

Is there a way to coerce array values with dry-validation?

Tim Riley

@timriley

@mrbongiolo what sort of thing would you like to achieve?

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

@timriley Actually I have a form that sends IDs, but as string, I would like to coerce them to Integer, something like:

optional(:my_ids, [:nil, :array]).each([:nil, :int], :int?)

Tim Riley

@timriley

OK cool. And is this a Dry::Validation.Form schema?

Fran Worley

@fran-worley

@mrbongiolo I use Types::Form::Array.member(Types::Form::Int) works perfectly in my Reform form to do exactly as you describe

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

Thanks @fran-worley I'll try this out :)

It worked like a charm!!! Thanks for the help, I had forgotten about the member key on Dry::Types

Tim Riley

@timriley

Can we see your final result, @mrbongiolo? :)

Thanks @fran-worley :)

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

Sure @timriley, here it is:

# first I defined my custom Dry Type
module MyApp
  module Types
    include Dry::Types.module
    ArrayOfInts = Types::Form::Array.member(Types::Form::Int)
  end
end

# Then I use it on my Schema
optional(:my_ids, [:nil, MyApp::Types::ArrayOfInts]).each(:int?)

Tim Riley

@timriley

right, very nice :)

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

Is there an easy way to say that the schema should be valid only if one specific key is given and none of the others, or only some of the others? Or I would need to list all the other keys on a custom rule?

Tim Riley

@timriley

just on the schema still, another way could be like this:

optional(:my_ids, [:nil, :array]).each([:nil, Types::Form::Int], :int?)

or something like that, using dry-types’ coercing form types

if you wanted to avoid creating an “ArrayOfInts” type just for this purpose

That’s why I was asking whether it was .Form schema, I was wondering if/how that worked with the new type specs

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

@timriley so each accept a type as first argument?

I'm using Dry::Validation.Form with type_spec = true on the configs

I've tried your suggestions, but then I get this error: +nil+ is not a valid predicate name

Tim Riley

@timriley

ah, I probably got it wrong, sorry

Tim Riley

@timriley

It’s an interesting question though, the intersection of type specs and each

Ralf Schmitz Bongiolo

@mrbongiolo

Yes, I guess it makes sense to be able to coerce array values in the way that you expressed. Not sure if that would be doable or way to off of what each() proposes

Christian Meier

@mkristian

hi, I am looking for some way to share validation rules between server and javascript client. I wonder if dry-validation can export its 'rules' in one way or the other ?

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

@mkristian I've thought about this a lot in the past, the best solution I could think of was a custom verb like DESCRIBE to build the model representation on start-up, but I think just sticking to server-side validation is the better option

Having said that dry-validation builds an AST, so you could use that to create some representation of the validation predicates

Christian Meier

@mkristian

that sound interesting.

server side validation is easier but with javascript only clients not an option - anymore

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Not sure what you mean, surely you send your data to the server at some point?

Christian Meier

@mkristian

yes, we do but client side validation is much more responsive. the AST idea I will look into it. as we already decided to have only 'simple' validation on the client and all those custom and more complex stuff stays on the server

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Yeah, it would be nice in an ideal world, I just think the cost outweighs the benefits personally

Christian Meier

@mkristian

I personally are more on your side but it is not my decision I just need to find a solution :)

Fran Worley

@fran-worley

If you really don't want to write the js validations yourself you could just Ajax the data on change to the server and display any errors

Christian Meier

@mkristian

@fran-worley I want to have both and want to share the validation rules at some of them between the client and the server

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Well if a client/my boss asked me to do that, my suggested solution would be let's leave that rabbit hole alone, have the user hit submit and display the errors in one hit, but I know that's not always an option :p

Christian Meier

@mkristian

well, I was hopping (not too much) that there is already some solution out there with dry-validation

but from hear I get the courage and question the client side validation approach tomorrow - let's see what response I get

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

Cool, well if you end up having to implement it and need help, feel free to post on https://discuss.dry-rb.org/, it will require some intimate knowledge of the library and would be an interesting project, so would be nice to have it documented

Christian Meier

@mkristian

sure will do

Andy Holland

@AMHOL

FYI you can return the ast like this:

require 'bundler/inline'
gemfile(true) { gem 'dry-validation' }

s = Dry::Validation.Schema(build: false) do
  required(:age) { int? & gt?(18) }
end

s.ast
# => [[:rule, [:age, [:and, [[:rule, [:age, [:predicate, [:key?, [[:name, :age], [:input, Undefined]]]]]], [:rule, [:age, [:and, [[:rule, [:age, [:key, [:age, [:predicate, [:int?, [[:input, Undefined]]]]]]]], [:rule, [:age, [:key, [:age, [:predicate, [:gt?, [[:num, 18], [:input, Undefined]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Christian Meier

@mkristian

cool

George Millo

@georgemillo

how do people test their dry-v schemas, if at all?

I started writing some custom RSpec matchers, then I realised that my spec files were practically identical to my schemas themselves:

# schema:
required(:name).filled
optional(:age).maybe

# spec:
expect(schema).to have_required_key(:name).filled
expect(schema).to have_optional_key(:age).maybe

which is better than no tests at all, but tests take time to write, and now I'm writing 2x as much code for very little extra benefit

what are people's thoughts on writing tests for their schemas? do you find it worth the effort?

George Millo

@georgemillo

(I'm thinking that if I'm going to create custom matchers, my time is probably better spent creating them for Reform validations, which of course use dry-v anyway, but the matchers themselves will have to be different)

Christopher Dennl-Ortega Arrieta

@cdennl

@georgemillo don't test the schema but the instance which uses the schema

George Millo

@georgemillo

@cdennl I thought as much. In my case that would be Reform

Christopher Dennl-Ortega Arrieta

@cdennl

the schema alone is pretty meaningless

@georgemillo yes

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity