Conversation
|
@Keats ping :) |
validator_derive/src/lib.rs
Outdated
|
|
||
| // Must not match validation | ||
| let must_not_match = if let Some(must_not_match) = self.must_not_match.clone() { | ||
| // TODO: handle option for other |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As I understood correctly - it was handled
| /// Validates that the 2 given fields do not match. | ||
| /// Both fields are optionals | ||
| #[must_use] | ||
| pub fn validate_must_not_match<T: Eq>(a: T, b: T) -> bool { |
Jawell
force-pushed
the
add-must-not-match-validator
branch
from
1dc4cb8 to
4d3607a
Compare
|
Looks like legit failures |
I fixed tests |
|
@Keats reminder :) |
1 similar comment
|
@Keats reminder :) |
|
|
||
| ### must_match | ||
| Tests whether the 2 fields are equal. `must_match` takes 1 string argument. It will error if the field | ||
| ### must_match and must_not_match |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we can use must_match rather than create a new validator. Something like must_match(expected=false) with a default of true (bad name but just to illustrate)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you didn't approve generic not() (Add not_match validator #141) and we have contains and does_not_contain I thought that we need a new one
|
After thinking about it in practice it would be easier to write a custom validator and doesn't make sense to be a default validator. I probably wouldn't even include |
|
@Keats no problem |
|
You can't right now, you have to do a schema level validation fn |
2 participants
Hi there! I want to add one more validator if you don't mind