Feature Request: Revert of optional()and nullable

[zhaoyao91]

Some base schema defined some fields as optional, but when used in a concrete situation, we may need to assume it as required. It would be good to have revert operators such as required() and notNull

[yuhr]

This seems to be a feature request rather than a question. If you provide some example code then I can provide a workaround for you. Maybe .extend() should work for your case:

Record({ x: String.optional() }).extend({ x: String })

Well, I think required is a reasonable feature to implement as is. As for notNull (I prefer nonNull BTW), we should implement a feature like .exclude() e.g. Union(A, B).exclude(B) === Union(A) at first, since nullable types are just Unions including Null as their alternatives, and then implement .nonNull() as an alias for .exclude(Null).

[zhaoyao91]

Cool~ look forword to
The problem of current extend workaround is, we have to have knowledge of the original field to make it again, which is duplicated and weak.

[yuhr]

Okay, then you can use Optional(A).underlying to unwrap it for now, but it should be deprecated and replaced soon by .required() which has more understandable name.