dry-rb/chat

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

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

With dry-rb validation, how would I validate that 2 dates aren't more than 2 months apart?

Sean Winner

@swinner2

in dry-validation. If I use type_specs = true do I have to declare a type for each rule? Any way to only define a type spec for one rule?

Tim Riley

@timriley

@swinner2 you have to declare a spec for every key, yeah

Tim Riley

@timriley

@cmrichards something like this?

require "dry/validation"
require "time_math"

schema = Dry::Validation.Schema do
  configure do
    def self.messages
      super.merge(en: {errors: {ends_at_within_two_weeks_of_starts_at: 'must be within two weeks of start time'}})
    end
  end

  required(:starts_at).filled(:time?)
  required(:ends_at).filled(:time?)

  validate(ends_at_within_two_weeks_of_starts_at: [:starts_at, :ends_at]) do |starts_at, ends_at|
    two_weeks = 2 * 7 * 24 * 60

    (ends_at - starts_at) <= two_weeks
  end
end

valid_input = {
  starts_at: TimeMath.day.decrease(Time.now, 10),
  ends_at: Time.now,
}

schema.(valid_input).messages
# => {}

invalid_input = {
  starts_at: TimeMath.day.decrease(Time.now, 20),
  ends_at: Time.now,
}

schema.(invalid_input).messages
# => {:ends_at_within_two_weeks_of_starts_at=>["must be within two weeks of start time"]}

I did two weeks instead of two months, but you get the idea

Sean Winner

@swinner2

@timriley I’m trying to find a way to make the default type_spec Types::Anysorry I’m pretty new to dry-validation. Is there an easy way to go about this?

Tim Riley

@timriley

@swinner2 why are you trying to avoid specifying stricter types? The whole idea of dry-validation is to avoid such looseness as comes with an “any” type.

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

@timriley yeah thanks!

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

custom-validation-blocks seem more comprehensible than high-level-rules to me

i.e. I wouldn't need to to refer back to the dry-validation docs when writing them

Ah... i see you get free error-message-creation with high level rules

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@cmrichards in dry-v 1.0 there will only be custom validation blocks

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

@solnic why?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

because they are simpler

Sean Winner

@swinner2

@timriley that makes sense and I agree. I guess it’s more of a convenience for the other developers. I wanted a generic schema to validate input for trailblazer operations that would whitelist and coerce, specifically ”true” => true. For now we’ll go with just whitelisting. Some people freak out when seeing types in ruby :scream_cat:

Markus Unterwaditzer

@untitaker

Hi, is there any way to have a Dry::Struct with private fields?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@untitaker just do private :attr_name

Markus Unterwaditzer

@untitaker

ah thanks. I only tried private; attribute :foo which wasn't working

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@untitaker private is a method, it accepts name of a method that you want to mark as private

Markus Unterwaditzer

@untitaker

yes, but in plain classes I can write a line that just says private and all methods below that line are then private, that's why I tried it out

Tim Canty

@timmcanty

Hi, I'm trying to do something specific with dry-validations, but am having a tough time. I have a field that needs to: 1. be optional 2. be an array, if it is present 3. have an each predicate run on the contents. It seems like chaining maybe(:array?).each(predicate) does not throw errors when the value is not an array.

Eugene Khutko

@FoboCasteR

Hi!

What is the Dry::Types::Definition#try method for?

Gustavo Caso

@GustavoCaso

I checks if the value provided is the valid

If so returns a Success object with the value

If is not valid it will return Failureobject with the value and the error message

Gustavo Caso

@GustavoCaso

@FoboCasteR did it help?

Eugene Khutko

@FoboCasteR

Thanks. I already use it this way. But I not found any docs or code examples.

Eugene Khutko

@FoboCasteR

Also, it seems to me inconvenient that Result from Dry::Types instead of Dry::Monads

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@FoboCasteR we could consider changing it to use Dry::Monads

Gustavo Caso

@GustavoCaso

I should not be a hard change to make

Eugene Khutko

@FoboCasteR

@GustavoCaso Maybe. But this change will make dry-monads a hard dependency.

Gustavo Caso

@GustavoCaso

Yes definitely it will make a dependency of dry-types

Pablo Herrero

@pabloh

Any Idea why this works:

class SubForm < Form
  define! do
    required(:foo).filled(:int?)
    optional(:bar).maybe(:int?)
  end
end

class MainForm < Form
  define! do
    required(:qux).filled(:int?)

    optional(:bar).maybe do
      schema(SubForm.new) # Using new
    end
  end
end

But this doesn't?:

class SubForm < Form
  define! do
    required(:foo).filled(:int?)
    optional(:bar).maybe(:int?)
  end
end

class MainForm < Form
  define! do
    required(:qux).filled(:int?)

    optional(:bar).maybe do
      schema(SubForm) # Using class directly
    end
  end
end

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

https://twitter.com/dry_rb/status/949266268724563969

Gustavo Caso

@GustavoCaso

:clap: :clap:

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

https://twitter.com/dry_rb/status/949278165431738368

Jeff Dickey

@jdickey

:tada:

Vasily Kolesnikov

@v-kolesnikov

:fire: :+1:

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

Is Factory Girl a good technique to create dB objects use during testing with a new app that will use dry-validation heavily when creating records from form data? Or would it be better to create servicey-type objects and only use them to setup initial DB data in tests?

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@cmrichards whatever works, we use rom-factory but it's not as mature as FactoryBot (reminder: they renamed the gem)

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

ok. I thought you'd use the same service objects you create in your app to make the objects required in your tests. e.g. CreateCompany.({...}).

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

My concern with using something like factory-bot is that it's a third place you need to maintain the idea of what a valid object is: tests, normal-code, and factory-bot.

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

The functional style of dry-validation::Form is great. The way simple_form and rails renders forms using the form-object/AM-interface is also great. I want some way of living in both worlds, but im not sure if it is possible

@solnic how do you render forms? Do you just pass in a hash to the form renderer rather than any kind of form object?

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

So it seems like this can't be placed in a Service superclass: include Dry::Matcher.for(:call, with: Dry::Matcher::EitherMatcher)

Piotr Solnica

@solnic

@cmrichards we use an in-house gem called formalist

Chris Richards

@cmrichards

Strange. I have to turn rails' params into a hash before the string will be accepted as an integer:

(byebug) params[:company_branch]
<ActionController::Parameters {"company_id"=>"9", "name"=>"", "address"=>"", "post_code"=>"", "phone"=>""} permitted: true>
(byebug)  CreateCompanyBranch.new.call(params[:company_branch])
Failure({:company_id=>["must be an integer"], :name=>["must be filled"]})
(byebug)  CreateCompanyBranch.new.call(params[:company_branch].to_h)
Failure({:name=>["must be filled"]})

Where communities thrive

People

Repo info

Activity