feat(Form): handle multiple paths in validate
#1273
Merged
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
|
The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎
|
benjamincanac
changed the title
benjamincanac
changed the title
validate API function
benjamincanac
approved these changes
Jan 27, 2024
benjamincanac
changed the title
validate API functionvalidate
|
Thanks 😊 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
❓ Type of change
📚 Description
The primary motivation behind this change is to address a specific use case where multiple dynamic paths need validation for a multi-step form. In the original implementation, when a user progressed to the next step by clicking "continue," I needed to validate various steps asynchronously. The solution involved using await Promise.all(paths.map(path => form.value.validate(path))).
However, due to the asynchronous nature of the validate function, there was a potential issue where the final state of errors.value might not accurately reflect the expected validation results.
📝 Checklist