Require this field OR that field

[plagasul]

The idea would be to be able to require a field OR another field. One or the other, not necessarily both.

For example, on the following blueprint I need either a cover image to be provided, or at least one image on the images section, but not both.

cover:
    type: files 
    # require: true
...
images:
    type: files
    # min: 1

The syntax could be something like:

cover:
    type: files 
    require: 
        or: images
...
images:
    type: files
    min:
        - 1
        or: cover

...this particular example mixes 'required' and 'min', but the idea is the same.

[afbora]

You possible mean when → then feature, right? https://github.com/getkirby/ideas/issues/257

[plagasul]

Hello @afbora , I don't see how the when -> then feature could be used to do what I mean here.

What I mean is to extend the actual 'require' field option in a way that allows to require any field among a number of fields. For example among field A, B and C, the user needs to fill at least one, any of them. The user can fill two or three, but only one (any) is 'required'.

Is that clear?

Thanks

[lukasbestle]

With when/then, you could configure something like this:

when:
  - test:
      otherField: ''
      anotherField: ''
    comparison: and
    then:
      required: true
    otherwise:
      required: false

[plagasul]

Yes, that does seem a way to accomplish the same, although quite verbose considering all that code would need to go on the three fields in your example. Is that final syntax?

I would still prefer a simpler syntax such as

require:
  or: otherfieldname

...which would be more close to what we already do, and specific to require instead of a meta when/then condition train.

Cheers!

[lukasbestle]

I agree that the syntax is more verbose, but it's also a lot more flexible.

The point is: If we can implement one feature that covers many use-cases, that's a lot better than individual features that make both the blueprint syntax and the implementation way more complex. Also we would duplicate functionality, which will create edge-cases that don't work as expected.

Is that final syntax?

No, it's the current state of the discussion.