is support for ruleset X or ruleset Y supported? about async-validate HOT 5 CLOSED

Thanks for the issue.

You can of course define a custom rule that would do this for your purpose, let's work together to find the best way to implement this for your use-case.

I am resting until the 10th, I'll be in touch again afterwards.

FYI:

Related: when defining an array of objects, is there a way to define the type of the items inside the arrays? I.e: type=array + items="Object", or in the above example type=array + items=[Person,Organization] might make sense for instance

Should be resolved with:

#46
6db76c4

You should be able to find a test case for this - let me know if there isn't one!

from async-validate.

Here is my current thinking, we define a rule property such as resolve which points to a function that inspects the object being processed and returns the rule to execute for that object. The function would be called synchronously and must return a valid rule, for example:

var Person = // define rule for person
var MusicGroup = // define rule for music group
function resolve() {
  switch(this['@type']) {  // called with `this` as the object being validated
    case "Person":
      return Person;
    case "MusicGroup":
      return MusicGroup;
  }
  throw new Error('Unknown @type encountered')
}

Then in the rule declaration assign the resolve() function to the resolve property which would be executed to locate the rule.

How does that sound?

from async-validate.

Yep sounds good to me.

FYI: moved on by doing some custom hacking in schema.js that let's me
circumvent the issue since I needed some other stuff as well, but this
certainly seems to solve this particular issue pretty elegantly.

On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, muji [email protected] wrote:

Here is my current thinking, we define a rule property such as resolve
which points to a function that inspects the object being processed and
returns the rule to execute for that object. The function would be called
synchronously and must return a valid rule, for example:

var Person = // define rule for personvar MusicGroup = // define rule for music groupfunction resolve() {
switch(this['@type']) { // called with this as the object being validated
case "Person":
return Person;
case "MusicGroup":
return MusicGroup;
}
throw new Error('Unknown @type encountered')
}

Then in the rule declaration assign the resolve() function to the resolve
property which would be executed to locate the rule.

How does that sound?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment)
.

from async-validate.

This has been implemented in ef53cae.

Added to the readme here:

https://github.com/tmpfs/async-validate#resolve

Test spec is here:

https://github.com/tmpfs/async-validate/blob/master/test/spec/resolve.js

Published to the registry as 0.12.4.

I have found a bug noted here #57 which may or may not be related to the resolve implementation, I have a feeling this is a wider issue to do with handling arrays at the top-level, will investigate later.

For the moment I am closing this particular issue as implemented - hope it helps!

from async-validate.

cheers!

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 7:02 AM, muji [email protected] wrote:

Closed #56 #56.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#56 (comment).

from async-validate.