Marc Busqué
Marc Busqué
Not sure, but shouldn't `order.recalculate` do the trick?
Closed by #4103
#610 adds missing `:format?` predicate. About the other two, the issue is that they are related to predicates expecting an array (or range) as argument. It hasn't straightforward solution. Macro...
Currently, a predicate can be of three kinds: - `#method(input)`, as in `#empty?([1, 2])` - `#method(value, input)`, as in `#gt?(1, 2)` - `#method(list_value, input)`, as in `#included_in?([1, 2], 1)` The...
In the case of `#size?` the user is in fact providing what the predicate method expects, but `dry-validation` coerces arguments with `Array()` so the information is lost.
Maybe we should: - Don't coerce with `Array()`. Just create a singleton array when provided macro arguments returns false with `#is_a?(Array)`. - Document properly the situation for array arguments. Alternatively,...
The referenced PR should fix the issue here with `#size?` predicate usage with a range. About `#included_in?`, the predicate expects an array so the correct way to specify it is...
If it's ok, I'll give a try to it.
Hmmm this seems tricky... it implies changing the architecture so that the evaluator and failures for every key are shared between all rules. Am I wrong?