Where communities thrive


  • Join over 1.5M+ people
  • Join over 100K+ communities
  • Free without limits
  • Create your own community
People
Activity
hasimisikli
@hasimisikli
can you explain this project please?
Igor Alexandrov
@igor-alexandrov
@hasimisikli you mean to explain dry-rb?
hasimisikli
@hasimisikli
Yes.
Grant Shangreaux
@gcentauri
"dry-rb is a collection of next-generation Ruby libraries, each intended to encapsulate a common task"
@hasimisikli that might get you started
Herwin
@herwinw
Does dry-validation have something like input input.strict of dry-struct? I can't find any indication of it in the documentation
Igor S. Morozov
@Morozzzko
What are you trying to achieve?
Herwin
@herwinw
Working with a legacy app where a lot of logic is based on a nested hash. I'm convinced some keys have become obsolete and some keys contain typos, so I'm trying to work backwards to a schema where every entry of the hash adheres to, that gives a starting point to see what keys exactly exist. So I want the validation to error if extra keys are given.
I could also use dry-struct for it, but I'm not interested in the resulting struct (yet), and dry-validation gives more readable errors
Matheus Silva Santos de Oliveira
@matheussilvasantos
Is there a way to get only valid attributes from to_h method of Dry::Validation::Result?
Igor Alexandrov
@igor-alexandrov
to_h just returns an output which includes everything. But you can always compare output with errors and exclude keys that you don't need.
Alex Park
@alexspark
Hi all, new to all thing dry here, i really like the APIs. Can someone guide me on how to coerce boolean strings but protect against weird strings like 'please'. attribute :active, Types::Params::Bool.constrained(included_in: [true, false]) throws errors in the gem
Alex Park
@alexspark
One work around I've thought of is to constrain the attribute as a string to only be one of 'true' or 'false', then try to coerce to boolean
Igor Alexandrov
@igor-alexandrov
you don't need constrained with Types::Params::Bool
because Types::Params::Bool already converts everything to true or false
Alex Park
@alexspark
but Types::Params::Bool['please'] returns 'please', and I don't want to assume sensible inputs.
which abstraction should i use to ensure only 'true' and 'false strings as input
Igor Alexandrov
@igor-alexandrov
I see...
From my point of view it is a bug...
please start an Issue
I will try to take a look
Alex Park
@alexspark
Oskar Szrajer
@gotar
Hi, anyone tried dry-web-roda with GraphQL? Any demo repo?
Anyone are using dry-web for their projects?
Oskar Szrajer
@gotar
I'm afraid except me or @timriley not too much persons use it on production :(
Tim Riley
@timriley
GraphQL applicability would be more about what persistence library you use, anyway. I haven’t heard of anyone doing it with rom-rb.
(and FWIW I’m looking at using hanami-router + hanami-controller as a front-end to dry-web/system for our future projects at work)
Nikita Shilnikov
@flash-gordon
@timriley awesome, thanks mate
David Dawson
@DangerDawson
@timriley you currently use roda? I am interested in why the switch to hanami-router?
Tim Riley
@timriley
From experience I realise I would prefer concrete classes/objects for each endpoint, rather than a big nested block.
Also, from a personal perspective, I’m trying to help with hanami development. This is a way for me to get on top of (some parts of) the framework.
David Dawson
@DangerDawson
Makes complete sense
Vasily Kolesnikov
@v-kolesnikov
@gotar I use dry-web-roda for a couple of my (production) projects.
I also found some inconvenience of using big blocks to describe routes and would love to see a better solution (maybe Hanami, but I'm not sure). Now I just divide my routes to separated files (named as a resource e.g. users.rb for /users/*).
Oskar Szrajer
@gotar
looks like I will try in new project a dry-web-roda + graphQL combo
we will see
Jaromír Červenka
@Cervajz
I'm in the process of converting GQL app from AR to ROM but on top of Rails. So far so good as I had validations and business logic in dry-* already. I have to be careful with GQL nested queries though - it was easier with AR to do so, but one could end up in a "circle of queries" if not being careful. Nesting with ROM is more visible and "terminated" at some point. Which I like.
Alexander
@cutalion
Hi, is there less "verbose" interface for custom rules in dry-validations?
Here is how I check "all or none" fields for location.
rule(location_provided: [:address, :latitude, :longitude]) do |address, latitude, longitude|
  (address.filled? & latitude.filled? & longitude.filled?) |
       (address.none? & latitude.none? & longitude.none?)
end

each attribute name repeated 4 times. Seems not readable.

I could extract internal code to some helper function like all_or_none(address, latitude, longitude)
but this will only reduce 1 mention of each name

Is it possible to use something like this?

rule(:location_provided) do |s| #s for schema
  all_or_none(s.address, s.latitude, s.longitude)
end
Alexander
@cutalion
Or maybe something like macros for high-level rules
rule(location_provided: [:address, :latitude, :longitude]).all_or_none
Ethan Turkeltaub
@ethnt
Hi, I'm looking for a little help with dry-validation. We're trying to massage some inputs from an external API to our internal API by mapping the external API's keys to our own keys. Is this something that's possible with dry-validation?
Igor Alexandrov
@igor-alexandrov
@ethnt I guess, you should look at Reform, it has an ability to map keys to model.
Vasily Kolesnikov
@v-kolesnikov

Is this something that's possible with dry-validation?

Probably not. At least dry-v should be used for other. Look at https://github.com/solnic/transproc, I use it for the same tasks as your.

Tim Riley
@timriley
@ethnt Yeah, I would do similar to @v-kolesnikov’s suggestion: put dry-validation as close as possible to the edge of the app, i.e. it would validate the input from the external API. After that point, you know you’re dealing with good data, so you could use transproc to transform it.
Ethan Turkeltaub
@ethnt
Thanks for the answers everyone. What we're trying to do is use dry-validation's schema to validate the inputs from an internal system, call out to one of two external APIs, massage the responses from them, and then map those responses to an internal model. The problem we're running into is that we'd like to share the schema between dry-validation and the internal model (currently using dry-struct) but we can't really
The internal model isn't database backed. We considered ActiveType but it didn't really jive with what we were trying to do
Ethan Turkeltaub
@ethnt
Transproc and Reform look very promising, thank you though! Maybe a combination is what we're looking for
Sean Winner
@swinner2
is there a solution to dry-rb/dry-validation#343 yet?
The ability to reuse a schema in a flat / non-nested manner (issue #204) following conventions already established, like so:
schema(EmailAddress::Schema::Create)
required(:email_address_id, Types::String).value(:str?)