The User can able to return validation config conditionally

[ajayojha]

Description

The user can able to return the validation config conditionally as needed. As discussed with @manudss on gitter. It should work by providing a new property of 'dynamicConfig' which returns the validation config. This will help when some of the calculation is required based upon the cross field value or current control value.

Describe the solution you'd like

The expected solution should be like as below :

export class User {
    @minNumber({
        dynamicConfig: (x, y) => {
            if (x.age > 18)
                return { value: 2500 };
            else
                return { value: 3500 };
        }
    })
    amount: any[];

    @prop()
    age: string;
}

As per the above code in the minNumber validation user can able to return the properties which are available in the NumberConfig interface excepts conditionalExpression.

[manudss]

return the properties which are available in the NumberConfig interface excepts conditionalExpression.

Why excepts conditionalExpression ? Maybe, we could need to change the funtion. If it is not causing some problem, maybe we can keep it.

[manudss]

dynamicConfig function should have this format

dynamicConfig(currentFormGroup: formGroupValue, rootFormGroup: formGroupValue, C) Partial

[ajayojha]

return the properties which are available in the NumberConfig interface excepts conditionalExpression.

Why excepts conditionalExpression ? Maybe, we could need to change the funtion. If it is not causing some problem, maybe we can keep it.

There are lots of things we have to take care in the framework if we provide a conditionalExpression in the 'dynamicConfig'.

I believe everything can be possible with the conditionalExpression.

Let's release without the conditionalExpression, latter on If we have a solid case for putting the conditionalExpression inside the dynamicConfig, then we will include the same.

Make sense?

[ajayojha]

dynamicConfig function should have this format

dynamicConfig(currentFormGroup: formGroupValue, rootFormGroup: formGroupValue, C) Partial

As current and root is the FormGroup value as per the respective node(parent FormGroup and root FormGroup value).

What's C(the third parameter)?

[ajayojha]

@manudss I am planning to release the new version tonight and waiting for your inputs.

[manudss]

What's C(the third parameter)?

The third parameters should be the current config object. And C was the generic types. As I have shown before.
But yes, my code was missing some information :

dynamicConfig(parent: { [key: string]: any }, root: { [key: string]: any }, currentConfig: C): Partial

[ajayojha]

But why currentConfig is required, as every time it has been changed and as per the current implemented code, I haven't maintained the original state of the config object.

I would like to understand the scenario where this will be helpful.

[manudss]

But why currentConfig is required, as every time it has been changed and as per the current implemented code, I haven't maintained the original state of the config object.

I would like to understand the scenario where this will be helpful.

ok, if you didn't maintenaned a state of config. It was juste if we would like to have the already defined config.

[ajayojha]

But why currentConfig is required, as every time it has been changed and as per the current implemented code, I haven't maintained the original state of the config object.
I would like to understand the scenario where this will be helpful.

ok, if you didn't maintenaned a state of config. It was juste if we would like to have the already defined config.

Thanks for your inputs.
I am just to sharing my quick thought on the currentConfig. The currentConfig will be helpful in those cases where we need to add/remove some additional values in the existing property of the config. likewise, If I am using the allOf validator then some of the 'matchedValues' are fixed and few will be added/removed based upon passed condition in the dynamicConfig :

this.userFormGroup = this.formBuilder.group({
isRugby:false,
games:['',RxwebValidators.allOf(
{
matchValues:['Cricket','Chess'],
dynamicConfig:(x,y,c)=> {
if(x.isRugby)
c.matchValues.push('Rugby');
else
/// something else...
return c;
}
})]
})

Looks promising of current config. I will try to add this as well in our release.

[manudss]

yes, it is for some case like this, that currentConfig should be usefull. or to keep the min value exemple. If in dynamicConfig, we would like in some case to add + 10 to the current Min Value. (or compute the default config with number of another fields).

[ajayojha]

@manudss I have transformed the earlier provided compose validator code with the minNumber validator through 'dynamicConfig'. Please refer the stackblitz example.

Feel free to share your comments for the same.

[manudss]

Perfect, it was a cleanest and powerful way to make conditional validation. Thanks for your work. Le jeu. 14 mars 2019 à 02:54, Ajay Ojha <notifications@github.com> a écrit :

…

@manudss <https://github.com/manudss> I have transformed the earlier provided compose validator code with the minNumber validator through 'dynamicConfig'. Please refer the stackblitz example <https://stackblitz.com/edit/angular-rxweb-compose-validator-with-required-validation-xrutmz?file=src%2Fapp%2Fcompose-add.component.ts> . Feel free to share your comments for the same. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#142 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA_5FuWJ9W0-xjafZXisyDXrHQWqs3D2ks5vWavegaJpZM4bo3NY> .