Result "errors(full: true).to_h" method output not expected

[luccasmaso]

The expected value for Dry::Validation::Result instance method errors is to

• errors(full: true|false) (Boolean) — Get messages that include key names
• https://rubydoc.info/gems/dry-validation/Dry/Validation/Result#errors-instance_method

The current behavior is that, for params do the key is added to the message, but for rule do that adds a failure to the key it isn't:

dry-validation: 1.4

class User::Contract < Dry::Validation::Contract
  params do
    required(:pin).value(:string, size?: 4)
  end

  rule(:pin) do
    key.failure('must be only integer') if value.scan(/\D/).present?
  end
end

contract = Validators::User::Contract.new
contract.call(pin: "12345").errors(full: true).to_h
# {:pin=>["pin length must be 4"]}
contract.call(pin: "abcd").errors(full: true).to_h
# {:pin=>["must be only integer"]}
# Should be {:pin=>["pin must be only integer"]}

[luccasmaso]

Ok, maybe I've not checked the API documentation properly.

I should be calling failure with a meta hash parameter if I want to keep the key:
key.failure(text: "must be only integer", key: :ping)

Is that right? Still, it is kind confusing because I am calling failure on the key already

[solnic]

You're right. This is a bug. Thanks for reporting.

[waiting-for-dev]

Shouldn't it be moved to dry-validation?

[korrs]

I started to fix this bug and found strange behaviour: When validation fails in params and rule definitions, then only error from params will be shown, error message from rule will be skipped.

For example:

contract.call(pin: "a").errors(full: true).to_h # two errors, less than 4 and not digit
# {:pin=>["pin length must be 4"]}

But when params check passed we can see rule error

contract.call(pin: "abcd").errors(full: true).to_h
# {:pin=>["must be only integer"]}

Is it expected behaviour?

I suppose, all error messages should be shown after validation:

contract.call(pin: "a").errors(full: true).to_h
# {:pin=>["pin length must be 4", "pin must be only integer"]}

[flash-gordon]

@korrs absolutely, you cannot run rule checks on ill-typed input

[korrs]

👌

[sirfilip]

Hello love dryrb and love to help with this one,

Will create pr with proposed solution

[solnic]

This was fixed in 1.5.1