Fixed Integer field constraints to match BigInteger implementation #59
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for the PR, you are completely right - as I switched the datatype away from Integer, this one escaped my attention. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Constraints for integer and number fields were not being checked properly
As the implementation of number field and integer field both use BigNumber and BigInteger which inherit from Number not Integer checking "instanceof Integer" would never be true causing constraint validation to always pass for these fields.
Updated unit tests to use the correct data type.
Also added year constraint check as it was not present.
Please preserve this line to notify @iSnow (lead of this repository)