Getting concrete errors in unions is too hard #216
Comments
|
The reason I suspect the problem is using the union type is because
|
|
The problem with For example, if your const UnionSchema = union(
[string('Please enter a string.'), number('Please enter a number.')],
'Please enter a string or number.'
);However, I am aware that this is not optimal for objects. So I am interested in improving this. Do you have any ideas? Do you know how this works with other schema libraries? Feel free to create minimal code examples with your desired API. |
|
Yes, I see your point, and makes complete sense, I was thinking only in my particular use-case. sum('type', // This is the tag, all members must have it
[object({type: 'A'}), object({type: 'B', something: string()}], // Sum of schemas
'X does not match any valid input' // Fallback message
) |
|
Thank you for your answer! Yes, we need a solution like this. Seems similar to Zod's |
|
Yes, here is another example: https://github.com/gcanti/io-ts/blob/master/Decoder.md#the-sum-combinator For me the critical part is extracting the proper errors, just in case I was not clear about that |
|
Is this related related:
This error is thrown only when client-side validation fails, if client-side validation passes then everything works properly. Context: I'm using it with Qwik + ModularForms + ValiBot + Union My Union implementation: const RegisterSchema = union([
object({
type: literal("send-otp"),
phone: string([
minLength(1, 'Please enter your phone number.'),
regex(/^\+?(?:[0-9] ?){6,14}[0-9]$/, 'Please enter a valid phone number.'),
]),
id: optional(string([
regex(/^[0-9]+$/, 'Illegal state, please try again.'),
])),
}),
object({
type: literal("register"),
id: string([
regex(/^[0-9]+$/, 'Illegal state, please try again.'),
]),
code: string([
custom(
value => !!value.toString().match(/^[0-9]{6}$/),
'Please enter a valid OTP.'
),
]),
phone: string([
minLength(1, 'Please enter your phone number.'),
regex(/^\+?(?:[0-9] ?){6,14}[0-9]$/, 'Please enter a valid phone number.'),
]),
email: optional(string([
regex(/^[a-zA-Z0-9._%+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,}$/, 'Please enter a valid email address.'),
])),
name: string([
minLength(1, 'Please enter your name.'),
minLength(3, 'Please enter a valid name.'),
]),
}),
]); |
|
No. According to docs path is optional: "path?: PathItem[];"
https://valibot.dev/guides/errors/#:~:text=//%20Optional%20info-,path%3F%3A%20PathItem%5B%5D%3B,-issues%3F%3A
I recommend you turn strict mode in your typescript
El sáb, 21 oct 2023, 14:43, Riajul Islam ***@***.***>
escribió:
… Is this related related:
Cannot read properties of undefined (reading 'map')
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24244379/277107725-abb130b3-bec4-4e17-ac60-813f3f9f29ac.png>
[image: image]
<https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24244379/277108614-8a3b004d-7ab4-40a4-b675-079eba6b303f.png>
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#216 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARKJWJANLTOGAOWQNWBHLTYAO7PVAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6H4LC2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZTG43TSMBUG4>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
It is partially related. With Modular Forms, I assumed that an |
fabian-hiller
added
enhancement
I already have a strict mode on in my tsconfig |
Is there any plan to develop |
|
Yes, I'm in the process of weighing the options right now. I find a const Schema = union(
[
object({ type: literal('a'), foo: number() }),
object({ type: literal('b'), bar: boolean() }),
],
(input, [a, b]) => (input?.type === 'a' ? a : b)
);The biggest problem here is that My current assumption is to add |
|
I have implemented |
|
Awesome, thanks for the update!
…On Mon, Oct 23, 2023 at 9:49 PM Fabian Hiller ***@***.***> wrote:
I have implemented discriminatedUnion. The API is expected to be
available in the next release in a few days.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#216 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AARKJWPXUXNAEUEAPR7ZDETYA3C6BAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6H4LC2KVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONZVHEYTKMBUGM>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
---
https://danielorodriguez.com
|
|
@fabian-hiller I don't see any reference to the discriminated union in the latest release. Was it included? |
|
It is not public yet. I will try to publish it over the weekend. |
|
For those interested, the way I'm working around this is by creating intermediate more permissive schemas. For example, the fields that are unions I have them as unknown, then I specify them in a derived schema. Then I perform a quick validation with the final schema, and if that fails I start from the more permissive to the more restrictive wrapping in my own errors |
|
@danielo515 thank you for the info. Can you provide a code example? I plan to release |
|
v0.20.0 is now available |
Hello, first of all, thank you for the work you are putting into this library.
Currently I am trying to use it to validate an array of objects that can be of a variety of shapes, hence I use union to specify all the possible types.
When I get an error in a "first level" I get a quite readable message using my very basic "flatten function". Something like:
field name should not be empty at 4.nameHowever, when the error happens at a nested property, despite I am specifying proper specific errors for everything I get a very generic message:
Invalid type at 4.inputI think the cause is the usage of union. Here is a basic example:
I will be very grateful if you either provide a nicer way to reach this errors or a workaround to implement it myself.
Cheers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: