Using "Any" generates incorrect rules

Consider the following setup:

type MyType {
  num: Number,
  str: String,
  any: Any
}

path / {
  read()  = true;
  write() = true;
}

path /path is MyType {
  read() = true();
  write() = true();
}

The third property of MyType is defined as type Any, so I would expect that, at path in the rules, it would ensure that any was included in a newData.hasChildren([]) statement, and then the specific .validate rule would check to ensure that it wasn’t null. However, the following rules are generated:

{
  "rules": {
    "path": {
      ".validate": "newData.hasChildren(['num', 'str', 'any'])",
      "num": {
        ".validate": "newData.isNumber()"
      },
      "str": {
        ".validate": "newData.isString()"
      },
      "$other": {
        ".validate": "false"
      },
      ".read": "true()",
      ".write": "true()"
    }
  }
}

Notice the complete lack of a .validate rule for any, even though the parent .validate includes it in .hasChildren(). Because this is left out, the $other wildcard .validate: false rule breaks the rule generation!

[mm-gmbd]

Hey @mckoss - any update on this one? I just revisited some rules, used Any as a type, and fell into the same pitfall. Looking at the docs indicated that I wasn’t doing anything wrong, but I had to come here to remember the issue - maybe the docs could be updated in the meantime (i.e. next to “Any” there could be a warning that says not to use it, or it could be removed entirely for now)?

[pandaiolo]

Hi

Also bumped into this issue. I use this workaround:

// Use this instead of type `Any`
type Anything {
    validate() {
        this.isString() || this.isNumber() || this.isBoolean() || this.hasChildren()
    }
}