-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Enable Arrays to be marked as required, and fixes for strings marked as required #442
Merged
Merged
Changes from 13 commits
Commits
Show all changes
15 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
c30f5b4
Enable the required field on arrays
cc91fa2
Update documentation
8ecafc2
Pass empty string text input in as undefined.
5091525
Typos in documentation.
8e2ecf1
Make code cleaner
e0fe72e
Make code cleaner
b826fc8
Make code cleaner
2e3c712
Make code cleaner
477d7de
Make code cleaner
ea934ed
Revert documentation for marking arrays are requried.
fe28e93
Change var to const
5f15775
Revert mandatory changes to arrays.
7e7a925
Update documentation to make it clear how to achieve the same result …
4026366
Fix documentation to (hopefully) make clear the distinction between r…
0e05f7b
Tests for converting empty string to undefined on Text and TextareaWi…
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It actually supports the
required
property, it only checks that an array property value is provided, which may or may not be empty. Put another way, for{foo: []}
is valid against this schema while{}
is not.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No problem! While it's true supports the required property, I suspect that it doesn't operate in the fashion most UI builders would expect, at the very least it's a potential source of confusion. I'd try and update the documentation to be clear in that regard. :)
And yes to the tests as well! :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to stay true to the jsonschema spec as much as possible, as it's our data model layer behind our form views. One of the goal of this lib is also to make forms and their underlying data model more robust and consistent. I wouldn't want to bring regular web forms flakiness to jsonschema, which would kind of defeat its purpose if you ask me :)
The best patch for preventing confusion is good documentation.