Fix for #227 #233
Fix for #227 #233
Conversation
| }; | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| setPrimitiveValidators('any'); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would it make more sense to make these (and shapeOf, oneOfType, etc.) just be methods on the Config as defined above? As oppose to declaring the object, and then mutating it down here over and over.
The implementation of each method could still just call some helper for the behavior that is shared.
Another idea would be to declare another object, something like ConfigValidators, and just merge the two objects at the end.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regardless this proposal the end behavior should be the same, correct? If so this pull looks good to me and then if you want you can send a refactor for the internals.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, it would be the same.
It would just make this file much easier to read, since all methods on Config would be explicitly declared in the same way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed. Merging this one and refactoring is welcome. Thx.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
👍 I will go ahead and refactor and send another PR.
We need to explicitly handle the use case for each validator since they all work differently. Validators that accept arguments all do something a little different. Previously, any validator that took an argument was never throwing an error.