Skip to content
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

asaskevich/govalidator #36

Open
tariq1890 opened this issue Apr 23, 2019 · 2 comments
Open

asaskevich/govalidator #36

tariq1890 opened this issue Apr 23, 2019 · 2 comments

Comments

@tariq1890
Copy link

Where is the project currently hosted?

https://github.com/asaskevich/govalidator

When was the project's last activity?

Jul 20, 2018

Does the project have a maintainer, or a maintainer looking for someone to take over the project?

No

What active projects replicate the popular functionality of this project, if any?

None that I know of.

Are there any outstanding critical bugs that result in the library being totally unusable or insecure?

asaskevich/govalidator#266. While the fix has been merged into master for this. A release hasn't yet been cut.

@theckman
Copy link
Member

Speaking personally, 👎. Whenever I see this mentioned in the community, I advocate for avoiding it and to instead write a purpose-built validation function. It's a complex dependency that utilizes reflection. Adopting this in to your project increases the cognitive burden, as you and any contributors now need to learn how it works and the nuances of that. A function you write and test is much more clear and approachable.

How do other Gofrs feel?

@adamdecaf
Copy link
Member

adamdecaf commented May 1, 2019

I don't think we should adopt this project. As Tim said reflection is hidden underneath and the functions may not be completely correct for any given business case.

The ISO 3166 and ISO 4217 codes haven't been updated for several years either.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants