how would it look if “unique_within_account?” had a third param?
name.unique_within_account?(account_id)
-> ?
so it’d be
def unique_within?(first, second, the_value)
and fo
name.unique_within?(“foo”, “bar”), first would be ”foo”, second would be ”bar”
is that what you’re after?
trying different things and I think there are issues with docs
… i guess . does it change when under the ‘filled’?
defined inside configure:
def scoped_unique?(attr_name, scope, value)
.filled(prdicate_name?: :args_go_here)
I don’t think you can do that short-hand use of the predicates if you’re depending on another input value
the high-level rules work because they only run if the input values they require have passed any other validations
in that way they’re “safe”
and e.g. our predicate method can rely on its args being a certain type
In examples above I’m referring to docs here http://dry-rb.org/gems/dry-validation/comparison-with-activemodel/
so… if there are two args`.filled(prdicate_name?: :args_go_here)
would it be:
`.filled(prdicate_name?: [:arg1, :arg2])
they’re splatted
getting clearer
Ok — @timriley i updated my PR to the docs to correct
dry-rb/dry-rb.org#138 let me know if that is correct now?
I thought there might’ve been a GH issue about this, but I can’t find it.
rom has something like it built internally for function composition but it’s not separate
maybe the pipeline thing is useful in other kinds of cases
This message was deleted