Fix typing for optional#765
Merged
gustavohenke merged 6 commits intoexpress-validator:masterfrom Aug 29, 2019
Merged
Conversation
gustavohenke
approved these changes
Aug 29, 2019
| nullable: false, | ||
| }); | ||
|
|
||
| expect(chainToContext(schema[1]).optional).toEqual({ |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have pushed to your fork this change to the test, so it's a bit more useful!
Member
|
Hello! This is out with v6.2.0! 🚢 |
This was referenced Sep 8, 2019
|
This thread has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There's a bug in the typings when marking a field as optional.
For example, this flags as an error
but allows the following:
However, this has no effect.
This has been addressed previously in #693 but it looks like this has been regressed.
Also see #742