Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Add context to coerce and validation funcs?
See original GitHub issueI’m producing some types for data that’s gonna get stored in dynamodb. It basically means having a handful of generated hash and sort keys, that are constructed from numerous concatenated properties on the object. (E.G. series|[seriesId]|book|[bookId]). So my coercion and validation funcs would benefit from having access to the complete object to compare the key to the properties it leverages.
Do you see an easy way to do this as is? Or is this a good feature request?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created 3 years ago
- Comments:9 (5 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
Added in
0.13.0!Absolutely!
I figured the mock idea was just experimentation, it’s an interesting concept too. I thought about it but the part I always get stuck on is that (a) the built-in mocks for data types like string/number will never be very accurate which leads to wanting to define built-ins for emails, urls, domains, uuids, etc., and (b) that it becomes harder to get the mock to stay accurate as extensions are made to structs. But if you end up figuring out a good way to do this I’d love to hear it!