Panic Bad field type *int64, when using required_if and omitempty at the same time #907
Comments
|
This is happening because validator is trying to run type SampleWithPointer struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity,omitempty" validate:"required_if=Type special,omitempty,gte=2"`
}Adding |
|
This workaround seems to be fixing the issue, but we should probably fix this, so it doesn't panic. |
|
@zemzale I think adding this code block fixes the validation. But we need to add this block to every validation that panics with nil values. func isGte(fl FieldLevel) bool {
field := fl.Field()
param := fl.Param()
switch field.Kind() {
case reflect.Pointer:
if field.IsNil() {
return false
}
field = field.Elem()
case reflect.String:
...Line 1815 in c7e0172 |
|
I don't think the omitempty tag is relevant in this case. It's actually the required_if tags that set the pointer to nil if fields aren't assigned a value during struct initialization. package main
import (
"log"
"github.com/go-playground/validator/v10"
)
type SamplPointerWithoutRequiredTag struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity" validate:"gte=2"`
}
type SamplPointerWithRequiredTag struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity" validate:"required_if=Type notspecial,eq=3"`
}
func main() {
_type := "special"
var q int64 = 3
s1 := &SamplPointerWithoutRequiredTag{Type: _type, Quantity: &q}
s2 := &SamplPointerWithoutRequiredTag{Type: _type}
s3 := &SamplPointerWithRequiredTag{Type: _type, Quantity: &q}
s4 := &SamplPointerWithRequiredTag{Type: _type}
validate := validator.New()
if err := validate.Struct(s1); err != nil {
log.Printf("Validate SamplPointerWithoutRequiredTag and given input for field, %v", err)
}
if err := validate.Struct(s2); err != nil {
log.Printf("Validate SamplPointerWithRequiredTag and without input for field, %v", err)
}
if err := validate.Struct(s3); err != nil {
log.Printf("Validate SamplPointerWithRequiredTag and given input for field, %v", err)
}
if err := validate.Struct(s4); err != nil {
log.Printf("Validate SamplPointerWithRequiredTag and without input for field, %v", err)
}
}Stack Trace: |
|
Sorry for the delay in responding, stealing some time before the kids are up to comment. I don't believe there is an issue here and that the validations defined is missing accounting for the possibility of the nil value as mentioned by @berabulut. Adding of the using this below example, lets thinking about it step by step: type SampleWithPointer struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity,omitempty" validate:"required_if=Type special,gte=2"`
}
or to put this into pure Go code this is what's being done: type SampleWithPointer struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity,omitempty" validate:"required_if=Type special,gte=2"`
}
swp := &SampleWithPointer{Type: "notspecial"}
if swp.Type == "special" && swp.Quantity == nil {
fmt.Println("returning error required_if")
} else if swp.Quantity >= 2 { // doesn't even compile because pointer and integer cannot be compared in this way and why the validation panics as defined
fmt.Println("returning error gte")
}What's really desired is this, which is equivalent to type SampleWithPointer struct {
Type string `json:"type" validate:"required"`
Quantity *int64 `json:"quantity,omitempty" validate:"required_if=Type special,omitempty,gte=2"`
}
swp := &SampleWithPointer{Type: "notspecial"}
if swp.Type == "special" && swp.Quantity == nil {
fmt.Println("returning error required_if")
} else if swp.Quantity != nil && *swp.Quantity >= 2 {
fmt.Println("returning error gte")
} else {
fmt.Println("all good, wasn't required and ok if not set")
}Now arguably maybe But for the time being making such a change would be breaking and cause all sorts of undefined behaviour. I understand that this may seem suboptimal and that the design of the validation functions & signatures may seem inadequate but also please try to remember a lot has been added to this library over the years and things were designed before there were cross-field functions like I have been compiling a list with such things for the next major version to improve upon, given how widely used this current version is I'm waiting until there are a significant amount of these changes to warrant such a major version bump. |
Package version eg. v9, v10:
v10.10.0
Issue, Question or Enhancement:
When validating an int64 pointer with
required_ifandomitemptyat the same time, callingStruct()leads to panic.Using
omitemptymerely is ok. Validating an int64 instead of an int64 pointer is ok.Similar to: Panic Bad field type *string, when using required_without and omitempty at the same time #654
Code sample, to showcase or reproduce:
stack trace:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: