Require one of two fields #61

KolbySisk · 2020-06-05T01:38:17Z

Similar to this Yup issue: jquense/yup#176

I'd like to conditionally validate at least one of n values are set. Yup and Joi solve this problem with a .when method.

Does Zod currently have a solution to this problem?

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

colinhacks · 2020-06-05T07:29:25Z

The when method in Yup is really interesting, and I'll look into implementing something similar eventually.

But for this scenario I think it's overfill. I would implement this as a custom refinement/validator on the outer object:

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
  })
  .partial()
  .refine(
    data => !!data.first || !!data.second,
    'Either first or second should be filled in.',
  );

The .partial makes all the properties optional.

The !! is currently required because the .refine method expects a boolean return type. If you update to zod@1.6.2 I just pushed a change such that any can be returned from a refinement check (and any truthy value will pass). This enables a slightly more readable version:

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
  })
  .partial()
  .refine(
    data => data.first || data.second,
    'Either first or second should be filled in.',
  );

Let me know if I misunderstood the scenario. 👍

KolbySisk · 2020-06-05T16:48:24Z

Perfect - I was able to get this working. I had to define the refine twice though. I'm using .merge to create a new schema using the original with the refine, and had to add the same refine to the new schema. But it works great thank you.

I was looking at refine in the docs hoping it could solve my problem but didn't see any examples of using it on the zod object itself and not the properties. I'm already using refine a lot because of mui (going to open a new issue about this).

Anyways, thanks for the help.

colinhacks · 2020-06-05T22:00:23Z

I'll try to clarify that the refine method is applicable to all Zod schemas. I should probably rewrite the readme in a more structured way, similar to Yup.

colinhacks · 2020-06-05T22:28:20Z

@KolbySisk thanks for pointing out the fact that you had to define the refinement twice. That was a bug. With zod@1.7 or later, if you .merge two object schemas, the result inherits the refinements of its parents (as it should be).

justinnoel · 2021-10-12T16:22:43Z

Perfect - I was able to get this working. I had to define the refine twice though. I'm using .merge to create a new schema using the original with the refine, and had to add the same refine to the new schema. But it works great thank you.

I was looking at refine in the docs hoping it could solve my problem but didn't see any examples of using it on the zod object itself and not the properties. I'm already using refine a lot because of mui (going to open a new issue about this).

Anyways, thanks for the help.

Would you mind sharing a sample of this @KolbySisk ? I'm having a bit of trouble with it..

This reverts commit 52bffa1. This change actually introduced a bug where form validation started to fail if form was set to "indefinte" and "validityEnd" date was missing. Proper way to tackle the issue would be introducing some kind of conditional validation e.g. by using `partial()` and `refine()` methods from `zod` as instucted here: colinhacks/zod#61 Example implementation would look something like this: ``` export const schema = z .object({ priority: z.nativeEnum(Priority), validityStart: z .string() .min(1) .regex(/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}/), }) .merge( z .object({ validityEnd: z.string().regex(/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}/), indefinite: z.boolean(), }) .partial() .refine((data) => !!data.indefinite || !!data.validityEnd), ); ``` The problem is that zod won't let us to `merge()` schemas after `refine()` has been called (https://giters.com/colinhacks/zod/issues/597), and causes problems in all places where ConfirmationForm has been used.

This reverts commit 52bffa1. Reverted change actually introduced a bug where form validation started to fail if form was set to "indefinte" and "validityEnd" date was missing. Proper way to tackle the issue would be introducing some kind of conditional validation e.g. by using `partial()` and `refine()` methods from `zod` as instucted here: colinhacks/zod#61 Example implementation would look something like this: ``` export const schema = z .object({ priority: z.nativeEnum(Priority), validityStart: z .string() .min(1) .regex(/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}/), }) .merge( z .object({ validityEnd: z.string().regex(/[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}/), indefinite: z.boolean(), }) .partial() .refine((data) => !!data.indefinite || !!data.validityEnd), ); ``` The problem is that zod won't let us to `merge()` schemas after `refine()` has been called (https://giters.com/colinhacks/zod/issues/597), and causes problems in all places where ConfirmationForm has been used.

maddijoyce · 2022-05-17T00:38:02Z

To anyone coming across this issue looking for something similar to yup's when option, I wanted the error to appear on the field where the problem actually is not just at the top level as in @colinhacks example above and I thought I was at a dead end. I was wrong!

With the superRefine method, you can add a path to the addIssue call. E.g.

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
  })
  .partial()
  .superRefine((data, ctx) => {
     if (!data.first && !data.second) {
       ctx.addIssue({
         code: z.ZodIssueCode.custom,
         path: ["second"],
         message: "Second should be set if first isn't",
       });
     }
  });

ckifer · 2022-07-01T05:42:44Z

Feel the need to comment on this as I keep running into cases this is needed.

I have large schema that needs to require one or another field. A nested partial Zod object with superRefine works for this (as shown above).

What I want to be able to do however, is to do conditional requirement on 1 or 2 fields without making the entire object partial and while having access to all of the fields in the object.

Ex:
I have a required enum that has two values: "ValueA" and "ValueB"

Upon "ValueA" then someOtherFieldA is required. Upon "ValueB" then someOtherFieldB is required.

There are also other required fields within the schema that should remain required without explicitly checking them in something like superRefine.

Is there any way to do this? Any plans for something like .when in Yup?

DrBronsy · 2022-08-01T11:35:55Z

Feel the need to comment on this as I keep running into cases this is needed.

I have large schema that needs to require one or another field. A nested partial Zod object with superRefine works for this (as shown above).

What I want to be able to do however, is to do conditional requirement on 1 or 2 fields without making the entire object partial and while having access to all of the fields in the object.

Ex: I have a required enum that has two values: "ValueA" and "ValueB"

Upon "ValueA" then someOtherFieldA is required. Upon "ValueB" then someOtherFieldB is required.

There are also other required fields within the schema that should remain required without explicitly checking them in something like superRefine.

Is there any way to do this? Any plans for something like .when in Yup?

One month! Faster mtf!

alex-udisc · 2022-08-23T18:23:05Z

Can we reopen this issue? I don't think using super refine is a suitable solution for complex form validation. Making all fields optional and checking them in a superRefine function doesn't make sense for several use cases I'm currently working on. I think @ckifer summed up the issue perfectly.

ckifer · 2022-08-23T18:30:04Z

@colinhacks thoughts on re-opening this or creating a new issue?

It seems as though there are complexities with implementing something like this and understandably so with the dynamic typing that would have to go on in order to keep zod as type safe as it can be while allowing zod to behave in the same way it does currently. zod isn't yup and I don't think we expect it to be, but there are a lot of valid use-cases for these types of conditional validations/requirements and yup does do it quite well (and with recent yup beta versions have much better TS support). Just the response to my comment above I think warrants another look at the problem.

Edit: created #1394

ghost · 2022-09-03T07:17:11Z

I think it should be a new issue because the original issue as posted was solved.

VIEWVIEWVIEW · 2022-10-04T18:34:30Z

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
  })
  .partial()
  .refine(
    data => data.first || data.second,
    'Either first or second should be filled in.',
  );

Hey @colinhacks, how would one make that work when I want to use this for more advanced strings?

For example, I have a registration form with three fields: username, email, password.

Password is always required. At least one of username or email should be required.

I thought I could use a zod object as you described here. However, that doesn't work when you add .email or .regex to the mix:

const schema = z
  .object({
    email: z.string().email().trim(),
    username: z.string().regex(/^[a-zA-Z_]+$/).trim(),
    password: z.string().min(8, { message: 'Password must be at least 8 characters' }),
  })
  .partial({
    email: true,
    username: true,
  })
  .refine(
    data => data.email || data.username,
    'Email or username required.',
  );

This one will still complain that an empty string "" is not a valid email / username, even when the other one is entered.

VIEWVIEWVIEW · 2022-10-04T19:45:49Z

I came up with a hack(?). It works, but it's not really beautiful imo

This schema allows a registration of a user with either or both username/email, and a password.

const schema = z
  .object({
    email: z.string().email().trim(),
    username: z.string().regex(/^[a-zA-Z_]+$/).trim(),
    password: z.string().min(8, { message: 'Password must be at least 8 characters' }),
  })
  .or(
    z.object({
      username: z.string().regex(/^[a-zA-Z_]+$/).trim(),
      password: z.string().min(8, { message: 'Password must be at least 8 characters' }),
    })
  ).or(
    z.object({
      email: z.string().email().trim(),
      password: z.string().min(8, { message: 'Password must be at least 8 characters' }),
    })
  )

mohamad-xtouch · 2022-10-31T21:06:14Z

I solve my issue with this solution
This is work if you have conditional validation based on some field in the main schema.

const FirstSchema = z.object({
  email: z.string().email(),
});

const SecondSchema = z.object({
  username: z.string().regex(/^[a-zA-Z_]+$/),
});

const MainSchema = z
  .object({
    password: z
      .string()
      .min(8, { message: 'Password must be at least 8 characters' }),
  })
  .merge(FirstSchema.partial())
  .merge(SecondSchema.partial())
  .superRefine((data, ctx) => {
    if (data.email) {
      const result = FirstSchema.safeParse(data);
      if (!result.success) {
        result.error.errors.forEach((issue) => ctx.addIssue(issue));
      }
    } else if (data.username) {
      const result = SecondSchema.safeParse(data);
      if (!result.success) {
        result.error.errors.forEach((issue) => ctx.addIssue(issue));
      }
    } else {
      ctx.addIssue({
        code: 'custom',
        path: ['username', 'email'],
        message: 'email or username is required',
      });
    }
  });

serg06 · 2022-12-30T08:21:52Z

EDIT: THIS DOESN'T WORK

If you're willing to repeat yourself, this solution provides accurate typing; it's great if you're using tRPC.

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
  })
  .partial()
  .merge(
    z.object({first: z.string()})
      .or(z.object({second: z.string()}))
  );

gradam · 2023-01-03T12:17:39Z

@serg06 do you have an example on how you used it with tRPC?
In my case TypeScript is not happy to accept ZodUnion in .input() in tRPC.

serg06 · 2023-01-03T18:25:05Z

Nice catch @gradam , it doesn't work after all. :(

dheysonalves · 2023-01-09T18:18:58Z

has anyone tried a solution with arrays ? Have at least one item in array for one of two fields ?

Dmitry-Titov-K · 2023-03-31T13:06:04Z

as a variant if your need set some paths

const myObject = z
  .object({
    first: z.string(),
    second: z.string(),
    third: z.string(),
  }).superRefine((data, ctx) => {
   if(!data.thrid){
        ctx.addIssue({
          code: 'custom',
          path: ['first'],
          message: 'error message',
      });
        ctx.addIssue({
          code: 'custom',
          path: ['second'],
          message: 'error messaget',
      });
     }
  });

frsyuki · 2023-05-04T08:01:10Z

A type-safe approach:

const schema = z.object({
  email: z.string().optional(),
  username: z.string().optional(),
  // other properties here
})
.and(z.union([
  z.object({email: z.undefined(), username: z.string()}),
  z.object({email: z.string(), username: z.undefined()}),
  z.object({email: z.string(), username: z.string()}),
], {errorMap: (issue, ctx) => ({message: "Either email or username must be filled in"})}));

A benefit of this approach is that parsed object is well-typed. Thus, following code doesn't cause type errors:

const obj = schema.parse({
  email: "foo",
});

const emailOrUsername = obj.email ?? obj.username;
emailOrUsername.length;  // emailOrUsername is "string", not "string | undefined"

forkollaider · 2023-05-19T12:46:47Z

Answer of @frsyuki works well if there are only 2 fields, however if there more ,then this solution will be overcomplicated.
I found useful idea on stack overflow. So what is the solution: to use refine and Object iterators

const atLeastOneDefined = (obj: Record<string | number | symbol, unknown>) =>
  Object.values(obj).some(v => v !== undefined);
  
  const schema = z.object(someSchema).refine(atLeastOneDefined)

And then it is possible to customise checks for your task

1mehdifaraji · 2023-08-14T17:25:01Z

I've handled this situation with if and else like this :

export const validateGetOrderQuery = (({ query }, res, next) => {
  const { success, errors } = validateGetOrderId(query);

  const { success: userIdSuccess, errors: userIdErrors } =
    validateGetOrderUserId(query);

  if (success) {
    next();
  } else if (userIdSuccess) {
    next();
  } else if (!success) {
    const err: Error = new Error(JSON.stringify(errors));
    err.statusCode = 401;
    next(err);
  } else {
    const err: Error = new Error(JSON.stringify(userIdErrors));
    err.statusCode = 401;
    next(err);
  }
}) as RequestHandler;

This way the request should have id or userId query parameter otherwise it will throw error as response .

exoego · 2023-09-30T01:47:07Z

A type-safe approach:

const schema = z.object({
  email: z.string().optional(),
  username: z.string().optional(),
  // other properties here
})
.and(z.union([
  z.object({email: z.undefined(), username: z.string()}),
  z.object({email: z.string(), username: z.undefined()}),
  z.object({email: z.string(), username: z.string()}),
], {errorMap: (issue, ctx) => ({message: "Either email or username must be filled in"})}));

This is type-safe, but the validation error message is not user-friendly if a client is not TypeScript.
If both fields are missing,

{
  "email":["Required"],
  "username":["Required"],
}

And if both fields are present,

{
  "email": ["Expected undefined, received string"],
  "username": ["Expected undefined, received string"],
}

It appears that errorMap is not used as expected.

exoego · 2023-10-01T06:58:58Z

function oneOf<A, K1 extends Extract<keyof A, string>, K2 extends Extract<keyof A, string>, R extends A & (
  Required<Pick<A, K1>> & { [P in K2]: undefined } |
  Required<Pick<A, K2>> & { [P in K1]: undefined }
)>(key1: K1, key2: K2): ((arg: A, ctx: RefinementCtx) => arg is R)  {
  return (arg, ctx): arg is R => {
    if ((arg[key1] === undefined) === (arg[key2] === undefined)) {
      ctx.addIssue({
        code: z.ZodIssueCode.custom,
        message: `Either ${key1} or ${key2} must be filled, but not both`,
      });
      return false;
    }
    return true;
  };
}

const schema = z.object({
  email: z.string().optional(),
  username: z.string().optional(),
  // other properties here
}).superRefine(oneOf("email", "username"));

This worked for me. It is type-safe and the error message is user-friendly.

kwameglide · 2023-10-09T22:37:56Z

Doesn't the use of partial() make all fields optional, essentially nullifying each field's validators...??

bennycode · 2023-10-23T13:30:55Z

Using refine or or on my Zod schema turns my schema from a z.ZodObject into a z.ZodUnion. Thus I am getting problems in my code (TS2416) that some parts are not assignable to the same property in base type (I am using implicit return types in most of my functions). Is there a workaround to fix this?

colinhacks closed this as completed Jun 5, 2020

ozimos mentioned this issue Jun 14, 2020

Specify path for object refinement #69

Closed

ekawatani mentioned this issue May 31, 2021

Refine validations on object definitions don't get triggered until all fields in the object exist. #479

Closed

tuokait mentioned this issue Feb 14, 2022

Revert "Add regex validation to validity end" HSLdevcom/jore4-ui#93

Merged

vipulkelkar mentioned this issue Feb 15, 2022

Enhancement: extend command definition with option set pnp/cli-microsoft365#2998

Closed

ckifer mentioned this issue Sep 8, 2022

Feature: Conditional Validation Similar to yup.when() #1394

Closed

brunozoric mentioned this issue Feb 2, 2023

feat: add an email form trigger webiny/webiny-js#2957

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Require one of two fields #61

Require one of two fields #61

KolbySisk commented Jun 5, 2020

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 •

edited

KolbySisk commented Jun 5, 2020

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 •

edited

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020

justinnoel commented Oct 12, 2021

maddijoyce commented May 17, 2022

ckifer commented Jul 1, 2022

DrBronsy commented Aug 1, 2022

alex-udisc commented Aug 23, 2022

ckifer commented Aug 23, 2022 •

edited

ghost commented Sep 3, 2022

VIEWVIEWVIEW commented Oct 4, 2022

VIEWVIEWVIEW commented Oct 4, 2022 •

edited

mohamad-xtouch commented Oct 31, 2022 •

edited

serg06 commented Dec 30, 2022 •

edited

gradam commented Jan 3, 2023

serg06 commented Jan 3, 2023

dheysonalves commented Jan 9, 2023

Dmitry-Titov-K commented Mar 31, 2023

frsyuki commented May 4, 2023 •

edited

forkollaider commented May 19, 2023 •

edited

1mehdifaraji commented Aug 14, 2023

exoego commented Sep 30, 2023 •

edited

exoego commented Oct 1, 2023

kwameglide commented Oct 9, 2023

bennycode commented Oct 23, 2023

Require one of two fields #61

Require one of two fields #61

Comments

KolbySisk commented Jun 5, 2020

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 • edited

KolbySisk commented Jun 5, 2020

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 • edited

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020

justinnoel commented Oct 12, 2021

maddijoyce commented May 17, 2022

ckifer commented Jul 1, 2022

DrBronsy commented Aug 1, 2022

alex-udisc commented Aug 23, 2022

ckifer commented Aug 23, 2022 • edited

ghost commented Sep 3, 2022

VIEWVIEWVIEW commented Oct 4, 2022

VIEWVIEWVIEW commented Oct 4, 2022 • edited

mohamad-xtouch commented Oct 31, 2022 • edited

serg06 commented Dec 30, 2022 • edited

gradam commented Jan 3, 2023

serg06 commented Jan 3, 2023

dheysonalves commented Jan 9, 2023

Dmitry-Titov-K commented Mar 31, 2023

frsyuki commented May 4, 2023 • edited

forkollaider commented May 19, 2023 • edited

1mehdifaraji commented Aug 14, 2023

exoego commented Sep 30, 2023 • edited

exoego commented Oct 1, 2023

kwameglide commented Oct 9, 2023

bennycode commented Oct 23, 2023

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 •

edited

colinhacks commented Jun 5, 2020 •

edited

ckifer commented Aug 23, 2022 •

edited

VIEWVIEWVIEW commented Oct 4, 2022 •

edited

mohamad-xtouch commented Oct 31, 2022 •

edited

serg06 commented Dec 30, 2022 •

edited

frsyuki commented May 4, 2023 •

edited

forkollaider commented May 19, 2023 •

edited

exoego commented Sep 30, 2023 •

edited