How to condense Yup “when” validations











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have several fields that are required if a single condition is true. Is there a better way to condense this code to avoid repeating the when for all of these fields?



const requiredForDiffAddress = {
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required()
};

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
city: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
state: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
zipCode: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
};


Or for a more realistic and involved sample



const buildRequiredForDiffAddress = requiredText => ({
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required(requiredText)
});

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street1: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("How will we know where to send your order?")),
city: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("What city do you live in?")),
state: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("State please!")),
zipCode: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("Zip Code please!")),
};









share|improve this question
























  • That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:35










  • I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:40










  • It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:42










  • @zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:51















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












I have several fields that are required if a single condition is true. Is there a better way to condense this code to avoid repeating the when for all of these fields?



const requiredForDiffAddress = {
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required()
};

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
city: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
state: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
zipCode: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
};


Or for a more realistic and involved sample



const buildRequiredForDiffAddress = requiredText => ({
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required(requiredText)
});

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street1: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("How will we know where to send your order?")),
city: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("What city do you live in?")),
state: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("State please!")),
zipCode: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("Zip Code please!")),
};









share|improve this question
























  • That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:35










  • I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:40










  • It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:42










  • @zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:51













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











I have several fields that are required if a single condition is true. Is there a better way to condense this code to avoid repeating the when for all of these fields?



const requiredForDiffAddress = {
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required()
};

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
city: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
state: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
zipCode: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
};


Or for a more realistic and involved sample



const buildRequiredForDiffAddress = requiredText => ({
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required(requiredText)
});

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street1: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("How will we know where to send your order?")),
city: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("What city do you live in?")),
state: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("State please!")),
zipCode: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("Zip Code please!")),
};









share|improve this question















I have several fields that are required if a single condition is true. Is there a better way to condense this code to avoid repeating the when for all of these fields?



const requiredForDiffAddress = {
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required()
};

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
city: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
state: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
zipCode: Yup.string()
.when('useShippingAddress', requiredForDiffAddress),
};


Or for a more realistic and involved sample



const buildRequiredForDiffAddress = requiredText => ({
is: false,
then: Yup.string().required(requiredText)
});

export const BillingAddressYupValidationSchemaShape = {
useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).required(),
street1: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("How will we know where to send your order?")),
city: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("What city do you live in?")),
state: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("State please!")),
zipCode: Yup.string().when('useShippingAddress',
buildRequiredForDiffAddress("Zip Code please!")),
};






javascript validation yup






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 19 at 23:50

























asked Nov 19 at 23:30









Snekse

10.8k74366




10.8k74366












  • That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:35










  • I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:40










  • It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:42










  • @zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:51


















  • That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:35










  • I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:40










  • It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
    – zerkms
    Nov 19 at 23:42










  • @zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
    – Snekse
    Nov 19 at 23:51
















That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
– zerkms
Nov 19 at 23:35




That's a nice demonstration on why one should prefer just normal functions over chained methods: the former compose.
– zerkms
Nov 19 at 23:35












I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
– Snekse
Nov 19 at 23:40




I think it's fine to have chained methods, you just need to be able to chain things directly, so something like useShippingAddress: Yup.boolean().default(true).when(false, requiredAddressFieldsSchema)
– Snekse
Nov 19 at 23:40












It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
– zerkms
Nov 19 at 23:42




It's fine, but then you have problems like you have now
– zerkms
Nov 19 at 23:42












@zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
– Snekse
Nov 19 at 23:51




@zerkms Thanks for your comment. It made me think about a more realistic example which makes things even more painful.
– Snekse
Nov 19 at 23:51












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













TL;DR: The solution posted in the question is probably the best way to handle fields that are required only when a condition is met based off the value of some other field*



Extended Answer



I've looked at this quite a bit after messaging the creator of Yup.



He suggested




extend mixed with a requiredIf method to encapsulate this sort of thing




I looked into what would be involved with that along with using some form of lazy. The extension route seemed to be better than the lazy route, but in the end, I feel like what I have is probably the best solution.



I created this fairly detailed CodeSandbox is someone wants to take a stab and find a better solution. I'll gladly change the accepted answer for this.



https://codesandbox.io/s/xk4r7nq9z



* ...and you want custom error messaging per field. It seems as if you are okay w/ the default messaging, then the example posted may not be the simplest solution.






share|improve this answer





















    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384140%2fhow-to-condense-yup-when-validations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    TL;DR: The solution posted in the question is probably the best way to handle fields that are required only when a condition is met based off the value of some other field*



    Extended Answer



    I've looked at this quite a bit after messaging the creator of Yup.



    He suggested




    extend mixed with a requiredIf method to encapsulate this sort of thing




    I looked into what would be involved with that along with using some form of lazy. The extension route seemed to be better than the lazy route, but in the end, I feel like what I have is probably the best solution.



    I created this fairly detailed CodeSandbox is someone wants to take a stab and find a better solution. I'll gladly change the accepted answer for this.



    https://codesandbox.io/s/xk4r7nq9z



    * ...and you want custom error messaging per field. It seems as if you are okay w/ the default messaging, then the example posted may not be the simplest solution.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      TL;DR: The solution posted in the question is probably the best way to handle fields that are required only when a condition is met based off the value of some other field*



      Extended Answer



      I've looked at this quite a bit after messaging the creator of Yup.



      He suggested




      extend mixed with a requiredIf method to encapsulate this sort of thing




      I looked into what would be involved with that along with using some form of lazy. The extension route seemed to be better than the lazy route, but in the end, I feel like what I have is probably the best solution.



      I created this fairly detailed CodeSandbox is someone wants to take a stab and find a better solution. I'll gladly change the accepted answer for this.



      https://codesandbox.io/s/xk4r7nq9z



      * ...and you want custom error messaging per field. It seems as if you are okay w/ the default messaging, then the example posted may not be the simplest solution.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        TL;DR: The solution posted in the question is probably the best way to handle fields that are required only when a condition is met based off the value of some other field*



        Extended Answer



        I've looked at this quite a bit after messaging the creator of Yup.



        He suggested




        extend mixed with a requiredIf method to encapsulate this sort of thing




        I looked into what would be involved with that along with using some form of lazy. The extension route seemed to be better than the lazy route, but in the end, I feel like what I have is probably the best solution.



        I created this fairly detailed CodeSandbox is someone wants to take a stab and find a better solution. I'll gladly change the accepted answer for this.



        https://codesandbox.io/s/xk4r7nq9z



        * ...and you want custom error messaging per field. It seems as if you are okay w/ the default messaging, then the example posted may not be the simplest solution.






        share|improve this answer












        TL;DR: The solution posted in the question is probably the best way to handle fields that are required only when a condition is met based off the value of some other field*



        Extended Answer



        I've looked at this quite a bit after messaging the creator of Yup.



        He suggested




        extend mixed with a requiredIf method to encapsulate this sort of thing




        I looked into what would be involved with that along with using some form of lazy. The extension route seemed to be better than the lazy route, but in the end, I feel like what I have is probably the best solution.



        I created this fairly detailed CodeSandbox is someone wants to take a stab and find a better solution. I'll gladly change the accepted answer for this.



        https://codesandbox.io/s/xk4r7nq9z



        * ...and you want custom error messaging per field. It seems as if you are okay w/ the default messaging, then the example posted may not be the simplest solution.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered Nov 20 at 20:48









        Snekse

        10.8k74366




        10.8k74366






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53384140%2fhow-to-condense-yup-when-validations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            404 Error Contact Form 7 ajax form submitting

            How to know if a Active Directory user can login interactively

            Refactoring coordinates for Minecraft Pi buildings written in Python