You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I've had cases where it's nice to be able to compose the standard validators to do what I need without needing to write a custom function. It generally ends up looking more declarative and less imperative, so easy to read later. Often, however, there are cases where I'd like to be able to invert a standard operator, for instance, if I want a field to match a regex, but also not be a reserved value, I'd like to be do something like:
It could maybe be added as just a specific variant of in_, i.e. not_in without much trouble, but I don't know if something like as generic as not_ would be a good idea. It could then maybe be used when composed with other validators. I'd be willing to give not_in a stab, but if it should be generalized to not_, /shrug.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I've had cases where it's nice to be able to compose the standard validators to do what I need without needing to write a custom function. It generally ends up looking more declarative and less imperative, so easy to read later. Often, however, there are cases where I'd like to be able to invert a standard operator, for instance, if I want a field to match a regex, but also not be a reserved value, I'd like to be do something like:
It could maybe be added as just a specific variant of
in_
, i.e.not_in
without much trouble, but I don't know if something like as generic asnot_
would be a good idea. It could then maybe be used when composed with other validators. I'd be willing to givenot_in
a stab, but if it should be generalized tonot_
, /shrug.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: