I think this is very useful.
I have seen some say this feature is unnecessary as you can just decrement the number in question. In other words, to make sure it's equal to or greater than 0, make the number -1.
This causes two problems, first and most importantly it's broken. -.5 would be valid in this case, which is clearly NOT equal to or greater than 0.
Also, the error messaging is ugly. "The amount field must contain a number greater than -1" looks unprofessional and hacky, whereas "The amount field must contain a number equal to or greater than 0." is far nicer and easier to understand.
I definitely think this belongs in CI, thanks for the great description.
I wonder if greater_than_equal_to is a better name - any reason you chose this way?
No reason at all, I actually prefer your naming convention.
I've renamed the functions and modified the pull request.
I'd like to see the documentation cleaned up to something like:
Documentation clean up for greater than eqal to, less than equal to f…