feat: Implement phone and email validations #414
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There is a failing test case that prevents us from merging: https://github.com/bpmn-io/form-js/actions/runs/3486984421/jobs/5834087642#step:6:486
If this is fixed, we can merge it 👍
vsgoulart
force-pushed
the
52-email-validation
branch
from
e0ebacc
to
8c9187a
Compare
|
@pinussilvestrus I think this is ready for review again |
|
|
||
| export default function ValidationGroup(field, editField) { | ||
| const { type } = field; | ||
| const validate = get(field, [ 'validate' ], {}); | ||
| const isCustomValidation = [ undefined, VALIDATION_TYPE_OPTIONS.custom.value ].includes(validate?.validationType); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to raise alternatives: instead of changing the schema by adding validationType we could detect the type by the pattern. But I guess this is too much magic, so having the validationType is the most explicit way 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Let's get this out of the door and gather feedback.
Closes https://github.com/camunda/team-hto/issues/52, https://github.com/camunda/team-hto/issues/53
Let's keep the issues open, as it includes some other things we should follow up later (update docs, adding lint rules)
Closes camunda/team-hto#52, camunda/team-hto#53