Pitfall of a different validation strategy #508
abelsiqueira
started this conversation in
Ideas
Replies: 1 comment
-
|
I have created a proof of concept: #517 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
0 replies
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
-
I was thinking about the validation and errorMessages and wondered if you have considered the following alternate strategy for
getMyErrors.getMyErrorsshould receive a object with optional fieldsinstancePath,schemaPathandparams.errorsarray for complete match of present fields.getMyErrors({ params: { missingProperty: 'title' } })should get themissing titleerror.getMyNewErrors({ schemaPath: `#/definitions/${props.type}/pattern` })should get the identifier errorThis approach appears more straightforward to understand, in my opinion, because it's more direct on what constitutes a match.
Possible pitfalls:
typeerrors can be ignored because they are usually superseded by pattern errors (I think).instancePath,schemaPathandparams.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions