Peter Solnica
Peter Solnica
@v-kolesnikov if it's possible to turn this behavior off in dry-types, then that would be the workaround /cc @flash-gordon ?
@adamransom this is an example where `filter` should be used, so I agree that your workaround isn't ideal. We can add a feature that would make `filter` + `maybe` work...
@adamransom the registry [is configurable](https://github.com/dry-rb/dry-schema/blob/e33c59236b992e5c5c97bdb5d950411f65ad3d24/lib/dry/schema/config.rb#L28) but there's no public API that would make it easy to use yet.
What about `required(:nested).array(:hash, NestedHash)`?
OK so this is because passing a schema to `array(...)` doesn't assume a hash type check. It's tempting to say this should be the default though because that's your natural...
Yes it assumes a hash but that's just because applying a schema doesn't have `hash?` check applied by default, there's a reason for this - predicates must be granular because...
We should probably just add user docs to dry-rb.org
We should properly document that using auto-inject in classes that you don't own is not recommended as there can be incompatibility with constructors. auto-inject does its best to determine super...
 Here is an overview of what got changed by this pull request: ```diff Issues ====== - Added 3 Complexity increasing per file ============================== - lib/dry/auto_inject/strategies/constructor.rb 2 Clones added ============...
This, along with renaming `Predicates.respond_to?`, should go into 2.0.0 release