We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Got a report from Oisín Grehan and Nacer Dergal in Slack of a scenario where they weren't seeing the validator run.
Turns out they had an array arg where the inner type had the validator. e.g. [SomeInput]
[SomeInput]
Essentially this is "Implicit Validation of Collection-Type Models" as discussed in FluentValidation's docs here.
By default they don't handle it, but you can opt-in to handle it.
Context: Slack thread
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
This overlaps a little bit with discussions on #61 with Jeremy and implicitness opening a can of worms.
Plan is just to document that explicitness is key.
If anyone disagrees and would like to see this feature, let me know in the comments.
Sorry, something went wrong.
benmccallum
No branches or pull requests
Got a report from Oisín Grehan and Nacer Dergal in Slack of a scenario where they weren't seeing the validator run.
Turns out they had an array arg where the inner type had the validator. e.g.
[SomeInput]
Essentially this is "Implicit Validation of Collection-Type Models" as discussed in FluentValidation's docs here.
By default they don't handle it, but you can opt-in to handle it.
Context:
Slack thread
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: