Allow sub-objects for TypeScript strict object schema #2841
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
A strict nested object was previously typed as `ObjectSchema<StrictSchemaMap<T>>`, which meant that Joi expected a Joi schema of a Joi schema of an object (i.e., a schema definition for an object of Joi schema fields) - which doesn't make much sense. Instead, it should require a Joi schema of an object _or_ an object of Joi schema fields.
|
Update: I had missed that the bug I ran into was already fixed in #2836. However, I believe this change is still worth incorporating, since it allows child objects to be specified inline. (See my updated test.) |
joshkel
changed the title
Marsup
reviewed
Sep 21, 2022
Co-authored-by: Nicolas Morel <nicolas@morel.io>
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A strict nested object was previously typed as
ObjectSchema<StrictSchemaMap<T>>, which meant that Joi expected a Joi schema of a Joi schema of an object (i.e., a schema definition for an object of Joi schema fields) - which doesn't make much sense. Instead, it should require a Joi schema of an object or an object of Joi schema fields.