take feedback comment

[kotarella1110]

take comments react-hook-form#32

[bluebill1049]

can we just use spread operator here?

[kotarella1110]

previous[path].types[type] type is string | string[].
I think [].concat(previous[path].types[type]) is better than typeof previous[path].types[type] === 'string' ? [previous[path].types[type]] : previous[path].types[type] 👍

[bluebill1049]

i thought [...previous[path].types[type]] is the same as ...[].concat(previous[path].types[type])?

[Paul-Vandell]

I propose this instead [...(previous[path].types[type] || []), message] to stay consistent with your code.

[kotarella1110]

@bluebill1049 @Vandell63 umm... The code doesn't support when previous[path].types[type] is a string.
I think it's correct to use concat.

const string1 = 'foo';
const string2 = 'bar';
// string
const test1 = [...string1, string2]; // ['f', 'o', 'o', 'bar']
const test2 = [...[].concat(string1), string2]; // ['foo', 'bar']
// string[]
const test3 = [...test2, string1]; // ['foo', 'bar', 'foo']
const test4 = [...[].concat(test2), string2]; // ['foo', 'bar', 'foo']

[bluebill1049]

i see that's fine by me 👍

[bluebill1049]

thanks for the explanation.

[bluebill1049]

👍

[Paul-Vandell]

Just for 3 of them expect(resolve.errors.password.types).toBeUndefined() finally.

[kotarella1110]

I will fix this 👍

[kotarella1110]

done.

[Paul-Vandell]

store in variable to avoid redundancy maybe with line 22 and 24. Not mandatory.

[Paul-Vandell]

Not mandatory too to save few bytes as @bluebill tell me before

[kotarella1110]

done.

[Paul-Vandell]

I propose this instead [...(previous[path].types[type] || []), message] to stay consistent with your code.

[bluebill1049]

thanks for the review @Vandell63 please merge it in 👍