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

feat: add option to validate decorators separately #2244

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mario-orlicky
Copy link

Description

Added a new validation option which forces to always validate a property even if the conditional validation results false. There is already an option named always which works with groups so I decided to name the new one ignoreValidation.

All tests pass except 2 tests related to JWT, but those tests fail also on develop branch so it was not caused by my changes - this could be caused by upgrading package versions regularly.

Checklist

  • the pull request title describes what this PR does (not a vague title like Update index.md)
  • the pull request targets the default branch of the repository (develop)
  • the code follows the established code style of the repository
    • npm run prettier:check passes
    • npm run lint:check passes
  • tests are added for the changes I made (if any source code was modified)
  • documentation added or updated
  • I have run the project locally and verified that there are no errors

Fixes

fixes #318

@tareksalem
Copy link

I don't know why a PR like this is not reviewed until now, I don't see the library maintainers willing to develop the library or add anything new, this library is so limited and good only for simple projects!!

@braaar
Copy link
Member

braaar commented Dec 15, 2023

See my recent comment in #1721

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Why Conditional Validation ignored all constraint on a field instead?
4 participants