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
-
I was thinking about the validation and errorMessages and wondered if you have considered the following alternate strategy for
getMyErrors
.getMyErrors
should receive a object with optional fieldsinstancePath
,schemaPath
andparams
.errors
array for complete match of present fields.getMyErrors({ params: { missingProperty: 'title' } })
should get themissing title
error.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:
type
errors can be ignored because they are usually superseded by pattern errors (I think).instancePath
,schemaPath
andparams
.Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions