Max Arturo AS

Hi @dominikspiertz ! I think the naive approach for your scenario would be to recursively traverse the `_def` for each of your `ZodType`s, depending on how many `refinement`s and `superRefine`s...

@dominikspiertz glad to hear you found a solution! If you're set, do you mind closing the issue? Thank you! 🙏 EDIT: my bad. I see you still have a question....

> Still this very inner type has the .optional() property, so calling .isOptional() still returns true, since it does not pick up the effects from zod in my case. Am...

Thanks @zetaraku . Feel free to update the tests to demonstrate this best practice.

Hi @tornvallalexander ! Do you have a sample repo/sandbox we can look at to be sure?

@santosmarco-caribou looks good at a glance! I haven't taken an in depth look - but I wonder if, for the sake of keeping `.required()` on the root `ZodType`, it would...

Very neat! Good job @santosmarco . To be sure, it would be a good idea to add tests that flex the interaction of `ZodObject` with `.require()` specifically, I think we're...

Hi all, This doesn't seem like a big lift. However, I wonder how prevalent is this use for integrating into other APIs? I certainly see the benefit (esp since other...

@AndreiLucas123 each successive `.optional()`, et al. call "wraps" the underlying schema in a chain of nested children. So, its all in there but you would have to recurse manually to...

Hi @zetaraku I'm guessing you suggest this out of experience :) Shouldn't be a big lift... I'll take a swing at it!