Is it possible to run validations on a nested object?

For instance.

var paymentInfo = {
   creditCard: {
     number: 45343434343,
     expiration: '01/15'
   }
};

var validator = LGTM.validator()
   .validates('creditCard.number').required('Credit card number is required')
.build();

validator.validate(paymentInfo).then(function() {/*... */);

If not, is there a way to do something like this or do I have to build validations for each part separately and combine the results?

I could be setting this up incorrectly but for optional validations it seems as though validations are never run if the value is an empty string.

For example:

var nameValidator = LGTM.validator()
    .validates('name')
        .optional()
        .minLength(2, 'The provided name must be at least 2 characters')
    .build()

Will validate with the following input as the validation routine is never actually run:

{ "name": ""}

In the above case the expected output would be an error and the text 'The provided name must be at least 2 characters'.

Here is a jsbin demonstrating this:

http://jsbin.com/yisimuse/2/edit

If this behavior intentional? Do I need to check for empty, undefined and null values outside of LGTM before running the validator on optional values?

The devDependency rollup was updated from 1.9.2 to 1.9.3.

🚨 View failing branch.

This version is covered by your current version range and after updating it in your project the build failed.

rollup is a devDependency of this project. It might not break your production code or affect downstream projects, but probably breaks your build or test tools, which may prevent deploying or publishing.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

Just curious: it seems like we must return 1 and only 1 message for each attribute, but result for each errors attribute is an array, why?

// Validate all attributes and return results with a promise.
validator.validate(person).then(function(result) {
  console.log(result);
  // { "valid": false, "errors": { "firstName": [ ], "lastName": ["You must enter a last name."], "age": [ ] } }
});

It's hard to type the same message every time, or even abstract to constants. Maybe we have to have some defaults?

Also, this won't work:

var v = LGTM.validator().validates('name').required().build();
v.validate({foo: 'bar'}).then(function(r) {
  console.log(r); // {valid: true}
});

While this works:

var v = LGTM.validator().validates('name').required('any message').build();
v.validate({foo: 'bar'}).then(function(r) {
  console.log(r); // {valid: false}
});

Example case: http://jsbin.com/heviwakoregu/1/edit

Did not see this within the api documentation anywhere, so if it is supported, please point me in the right direction.

I would like to specify a custom variable message based on the value being validated. Something like:

validator.addValidation('text',
    (text => text.length == 12),
    (text => `Text should be 12 characters long. (${text.length}/12)`));

The key part would be including the ability to display information about the value being validated within the message, rather than a completely static message.

I do not know why but lgtm-standalone.js does not work at all.

LGTM.validator().build().validate()
TypeError: $$config$$config.async is not a function
$$promise$$Promise.prototype.then()lgtm-st...?body=1 (wiersz 1567)
$$lgtm$object_validator$$ObjectValidator.prototype.validate()lgtm-st...?body=1 (line 198)
$$config$$config.async(function(){

Hi,

I'm trying to use your validator for my middleware project.

https://github.com/kristianmandrup/validator-mw

In in I have a run() method which executes the validation on a data object, however I always end up returning from the run function before the promise is resolved. I tried using done to wait until it is done, but get a "no such method". Which promise framework is used underneath? Hmm... I don't see any? Just basic node promises? I'm new to promises. Would be nice if you had an example of this in the README. Perhaps I should use defer.resolve() or smth?

run ->
  defer = validator.validate(data).then( -> ...)
  defer.resolve()

PS: I use LiveScript ;)

Hi, I want to know if there is a possibility to include a variation of the error message based on the current value of the field that failed validation:

const person = { name: '', isCool: true };
const person2 = { name: '', isCool: false };
// name is required, but if the person is cool, we get a different message.  I don't want to use person instance directly.
LGTM.validator()
  .validates('name')
     .required(object => object.isCool ? 'Person is cool, but needs a name', 'Name is required');
  .build()
.validate(person);

I'm using LGTM to validate REST API inputs and found myself repeating the same validations over and over. For example, all my GET endpoints need to validate LIMIT and OFFSET so I have something like this:

var getUsersValidator = LGTM.validator()

    // Validate limit
    .validates('limit')
    .optional()
    .integer(validationJsonError.serialize({
        detail:'The "limit" value must be an integer',
        errorAttribute: 'limit'
    }))
    .minValue(0, validationJsonError.serialize({
            detail:'The minimum value for the "limit" is 0',
            errorAttribute: 'limit'
        }))

    // Validate 'offset'
    .validates('offset')
    .optional()
    .integer(validationJsonError.serialize({
                detail:'The "offset" value must be an integer',
                errorAttribute: 'offset'
            }))
    .minValue(0, validationJsonError.serialize({
                detail: 'The minimum value for the offset is 0',
                errorAttribute: 'offset'
            }))

// Additional validations
.build();

var getPostsValidator =  LGTM.validator()
// Repeat above for limit and offset

Note that instead of returning string messages I return a JSON API error object (http://jsonapi.org/format/#errors). I know in all the examples you return a string but returning the object and then formatting all the JSON API errors into a single JSON API compliant response works really well (might be worth mentioning in the docs that you can return a custom object).

What I'd like to be able to do is compose together different validators to run together as a single compound validation or be able to easily construct a new compound validator from primitive validators (a validator that validates one attribute or property). I'm having a hard time figuring out a clean way to do this.

I basically want to encapsulate the validation logic for limit and the validation logic for offset and then use those as primitives to create a new more complex validator (there are other things like sort and order as well). This is made up but something like this:

var limit = LGTM.validator()    
    .validates('limit')
    .optional()
    .integer(validationJsonError.serialize({
        detail:'The "limit" value must be an integer',
        errorAttribute: 'limit'
    }))
    .minValue(0, validationJsonError.serialize({
            detail:'The minimum value for the "limit" is 0',
            errorAttribute: 'limit'
        }));

var offset = LGTM.validator()
    .validates('offset')
    .optional()
    .integer(validationJsonError.serialize({
                detail:'The "offset" value must be an integer',
                errorAttribute: 'offset'
            }))
    .minValue(0, validationJsonError.serialize({
                detail: 'The minimum value for the offset is 0',
                errorAttribute: 'offset'
            }));


var user = LGTM.validator()
    .maxLength(25)
   .required();

var posts = LGTM.validator()
   .maxLength(200)
   .required();


// My new validators
var getUserValidator = LGTM.build([limit, offset, user]);
var getPostsValidator = LGTM.build([limit, offset, posts]);

Are there some best practices on how I can achieve this? Thanks!

The bower dist assets have a reference to the sourcemap, but the .map files aren't published. Running make dist generates this ones correctly, but we don't include them.

Any chance we can bump to 1.0.5 in bower and include the maps? Alternatively, we could drop the sourcemap tag instead. This will help reduce the noise in tools (like ember-cli that complains if the sourcemap isn't found) or Chrome devtools that will get a 404.

This is low priority, nothing breaks, but it just creates unnecessary noise.

I really enjoy using LGTM for validation in our Node.js application. One thing I've found myself wanting to be able to do is change input values in a custom helper which right now can only pass back a true or false for whether or not the input value passed validation.

An example use case would be for a helper that checks for a boolean value. In this case I want to validate the boolean value true as well as the string value "true" and likewise for false and "false" (but not count null, 0, or 1 as boolean values). However, if the input is the string "true" or "false" I'd like to convert this into actual boolean values 'true' and 'false' as part of the validation process.

Another example could be as simple as changing the case of an input from upper to lower or formatting a date input into a specific output format as part of the validation process.

Is this something that can currently be done with LGTM? If not, is this something that would be of interest to add?

Thank you!

The devDependency gzip-size was updated from 5.0.0 to 5.1.0.

🚨 View failing branch.

This version is covered by your current version range and after updating it in your project the build failed.

gzip-size is a devDependency of this project. It might not break your production code or affect downstream projects, but probably breaks your build or test tools, which may prevent deploying or publishing.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

The devDependency mocha was updated from 6.0.2 to 6.1.0.

🚨 View failing branch.

This version is covered by your current version range and after updating it in your project the build failed.

mocha is a devDependency of this project. It might not break your production code or affect downstream projects, but probably breaks your build or test tools, which may prevent deploying or publishing.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

There have been updates to the babel7 monorepo:

• • The devDependency @babel/core was updated from 7.7.7 to 7.8.0.

• The devDependency @babel/plugin-external-helpers was updated from 7.7.4 to 7.8.0.
• The devDependency @babel/plugin-proposal-class-properties was updated from 7.7.4 to 7.8.0.
• The devDependency @babel/preset-env was updated from 7.7.7 to 7.8.0.
• The devDependency @babel/register was updated from 7.7.7 to 7.8.0.

🚨 View failing branch.

This version is covered by your current version range and after updating it in your project the build failed.

This monorepo update includes releases of one or more dependencies which all belong to the babel7 group definition.

babel7 is a devDependency of this project. It might not break your production code or affect downstream projects, but probably breaks your build or test tools, which may prevent deploying or publishing.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

Version 10 of Node.js (code name Dubnium) has been released! 🎊

To see what happens to your code in Node.js 10, Greenkeeper has created a branch with the following changes:

• Added the new Node.js version to your .travis.yml

If you’re interested in upgrading this repo to Node.js 10, you can open a PR with these changes. Please note that this issue is just intended as a friendly reminder and the PR as a possible starting point for getting your code running on Node.js 10.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

See #16.

The devDependency uglify-js was updated from 3.6.3 to 3.6.4.

🚨 View failing branch.

This version is covered by your current version range and after updating it in your project the build failed.

uglify-js is a devDependency of this project. It might not break your production code or affect downstream projects, but probably breaks your build or test tools, which may prevent deploying or publishing.

Your Greenkeeper Bot 🌴

Installing from NPM (npm install lgtm) doesn't include the commonjs build of LGTM:

🚨 The automated release from the master branch failed. 🚨

I recommend you give this issue a high priority, so other packages depending on you could benefit from your bug fixes and new features.

You can find below the list of errors reported by semantic-release. Each one of them has to be resolved in order to automatically publish your package. I’m sure you can resolve this 💪.

Errors are usually caused by a misconfiguration or an authentication problem. With each error reported below you will find explanation and guidance to help you to resolve it.

Once all the errors are resolved, semantic-release will release your package the next time you push a commit to the master branch. You can also manually restart the failed CI job that runs semantic-release.

If you are not sure how to resolve this, here is some links that can help you:

• Usage documentation
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Support channels

If those don’t help, or if this issue is reporting something you think isn’t right, you can always ask the humans behind semantic-release.

Invalid npm token.

The npm token configured in the NPM_TOKEN environment variable must be a valid token allowing to publish to the registry https://registry.npmjs.org/.

If you are using Two-Factor Authentication, make configure the auth-only level is supported. semantic-release cannot publish with the default auth-and-writes level.

Please make sure to set the NPM_TOKEN environment variable in your CI with the exact value of the npm token.

Good luck with your project ✨

Your semantic-release bot 📦🚀