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 AllowIf Decorator #382

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

burriedu2
Copy link

PR Checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements:

PR Type

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bugfix
  • Feature
  • Code style update (formatting, local variables)
  • Refactoring (no functional changes, no api changes)
  • Build related changes
  • CI related changes
  • Other... Please describe:

What is the current behavior?

There is currently no way to define whether a property is conditionally whitelisted, for example:

enum TypesCancel = {
  USER: 'user',
  STOCKOUT: 'stockout',
  OTHERS: 'others',
}

class CancelDTO {
  @IsEnum(TypesCancel)
  @IsNotEmpty() 
  type: TypesCancel;

  // if the type === TypesCancel.OTHERS, reason is required, but if not, must not sent
  @Optional() // with optional, it still receives even if the type !== TypesCancel.OTHERS
  @IsString()
  reason?: string;
}

const cancel = new CancelDTO();
cancel.type = TypesCancel.USER;
cancel.reason = 'reason';

validate(cancel).then(errors => {
  // cancel.reason is defined
});

Issue Number: typestack#1489

What is the new behavior?

enum TypesCancel = {
  USER: 'user',
  STOCKOUT: 'stockout',
  OTHERS: 'others',
}

class CancelDTO {
  @IsEnum(TypesCancel)
  @IsNotEmpty() 
  type: TypesCancel;

  @AllowIf(cancel => cancel.type === TypesCancel.OTHERS) // with AllowIf, the reason was accept if type === TypesCancel.OTHERS
  @IsString()
  reason?: string;
}

const cancel = new CancelDTO();
cancel.type = TypesCancel.USER;
cancel.reason = 'reason';

validate(cancel).then(errors => {
  // errors = reason should not exist
  // cancel.reason is not defined
});

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

  • Yes
  • No

Other information

This PR contains all changes from #86 but it has been rebased since the master has changed since it was submitted. It also updates the behavior to work as expected if forbidNonWhitelisted is set.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants