Why no unions as function validators?
The title basically, its a bit annoying to have to wrap stuff in objects
8 Replies
Thanks for posting in <#1088161997662724167>.
Reminder: If you have a Convex Pro account, use the Convex Dashboard to file support tickets.
- Provide context: What are you trying to achieve, what is the end-user interaction, what are you seeing? (full error message, command output, etc.)
- Use search.convex.dev to search Docs, Stack, and Discord all at once.
- Additionally, you can post your questions in the Convex Community's <#1228095053885476985> channel to receive a response from AI.
- Avoid tagging staff unless specifically instructed.
Thank you!
I'm also curious 👀
Could you elaborate? Maybe I'm not understanding what you're referring to. I use unions on occasion inside function argument validators without any issues.
Function validators as it stands right now cannot be set to v.union
When you run dev it tells you validators must be serialisable and it seems unions arent
You can use them but not at the root level
Nested inside object validatiors works fine
So {
args: v.union(…)
}
Doesnt work
Gotcha. Curious, what's the use case where this would be used?
I have a schemas folders where i have defined my schemas, and from time to time i need internal update or create mutations, where i basically just have a one liner db.insert call, for a few tables i can do this through importing the already defined schemas, which works great for object tables, for other tables that are unions in a db level, i lose that abolity
On my schema i was trying to do v.union(v.record(v.string(), v.sring()), v.string()) and getting weird behavior like it not showing up in my schema and not erroring that way but i didn't have time to investigate. im all for more flexibility
Just nest your union, eg.,
args: v.object({ input: v.union(...) })
its a bit annoying to have to wrap stuff in objectsAh just read that bit.