sanity-advanced-validators 0.6.0 → 0.6.1

package/README.md

@@ -23,12 +23,18 @@ This package includes a set of Sanity validators for aggressive and weird edge c
 
 Imagine that you’ve got a document that has an optional video file, but…
 
-- it’s required on the `/about` page
 - if the video exists, it must be either **MP4** or **MOV**
 - and there must be a poster image that's between **1250x800** and **2500x1600** pixels in size
+- and it’s _always_ required on the `/home` page
 
 ```typescript
-import { requiredIfSlugEq, requiredIfSiblingNeq, minDimensions, maxDimensions } from 'sanity-advanced-validators'
+import { defineType, defineField } from 'sanity'
+import {
+  requiredIfSlugEq,
+  requiredIfSiblingNeq,
+  minDimensions,
+  maxDimensions
+} from 'sanity-advanced-validators'
 
 const Page = defineType({
   name: "page",
@@ -43,14 +49,11 @@ const Page = defineType({
       type: "file",
       validation: (rule) =>
         rule.custom(
-          requiredIfSlugEq(
-            'about',
-            'A video is required if {slugKey} is {operand}.'
-          )
+          requiredIfSlugEq('home', 'A video is required on the home page.')
         ).custom(
           fileExtension(['mp4', 'mov'])
         )
-    })
+    }),
     defineField({
       name: "posterImage",
       type: "image",
@@ -413,8 +416,8 @@ defineType({
 Mark a field as `required` for documents with matching slugs.
 
 ```typescript
-operand: string | number | null | Array<string, number> // possible slug or slugs you’re testing
-key?: string, // name of sibling if not "slug"
+operand: string | number | null | Array<string, number> // value or values that you’re testing for
+key?: string, // name of slug field if not "slug"
 message?: string // optional custom error message; replaces {slugKey} and {operand} with your input, and {siblingSlugValue} with the value of the sibling you’re testing against.
 ```
 
@@ -462,8 +465,8 @@ defineField({
 Require fields on pages that don't match one or more slugs.
 
 ```typescript
-operand: string | number | null | Array<string, number> // possible slug or slugs you’re testing
-key?: string, // name of sibling if not "slug"
+operand: string | number | null | Array<string, number> // value or values that you’re testing
+key?: string, // name of slug field if not "slug"
 message?: string // optional custom error message; replaces {slugKey} and {operand} with your input, and {siblingSlugValue} with the value of the sibling you’re testing against.
 ```
 
@@ -520,7 +523,7 @@ defineField({
 }),
 ```
 
-**Custom error messages are highly recommended here.** Without the custom message above, the default response would be:
+_Custom error messages are highly recommended here._ Without a custom message above, the default error message would be:
 
 ```
 “me@googlecom” does not match the pattern /^([a-zA-Z0-9._%-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-zA-Z]{2,6})*$/.
@@ -655,26 +658,26 @@ defineField({
 
 ---
 
-## Extending these and writing your own
-
-Most of these validators rely on a function called `getSibling()`. If you’re thinking about picking this apart and writing your own custom validator, take a close look at how these validators use it.
-
 ## Roadmap
 
 ### Nested pathfinders
 
 Since building these validator, I took to putting my slugs in a metadata object. I need to update `requiredIfSlugEq` to accept a path, like `requiredIfSlugEq('metadata.slug', 'some-values')`.
 
-This pathfinding should be added to any validator that takes a sibling, like `requiredIfSiblingEq`. It can probably be snapped into `getSibling`.
+This pathfinding should be added to any validator that takes a sibling, like `requiredIfSiblingEq('metadata.slug.current', 'home')`. It can probably be snapped into `getSibling`.
 
 While I’m at it, there’s a possibility that `getSibling` could detect the target type. If that type is `slug`, then it could add `current` to the path, and then I can deprecate `requiredIfSlugEq` altogether.
 
+On a related note, `requiredIfSlugEq` does not work in an object nested inside an array. If we can deprecate `requiredIfSlugEq`, then this would be automatically resolved.
+
 ### Image and File checks
 
 `minDimensions`, `maxDimensions`, and `fileExtension` should check to see if the field is of type `image` or `file`.
 
 Some of the other checks should probably make sure the field is _not_ `image` or `file`.
 
+An `aspectRatio(n)` might be nice (ex. `aspectRatio(1.6)` or `aspectRatio(1.6/1)`).
+
 ### new referencedDocumentFieldEq validator
 
 ```

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "package-name": "sanity-advanced-validators",
-  "version": "0.6.0",
+  "version": "0.6.1",
   "description": "Advanced input validation tools for Sanity CMS.",
   "author": "Eric_WVGG",
   "license": "MIT",