Faulty ruleset when reusing objects with Array types

[andrenanninga]

With the creation of a SimpleSchema the used object may be altered causing any creation of SimpleSchema's using the same object to contain a faulty ruleset.

for example:

var example = {
    something: {
        label: 'something',
        type: [String]
    }
}

var schema = new SimpleSchema(example);

now when logging the original example object you'll get this:

{
    "something": {
        "label": "something"
    },
    "something.$": {
        "label": "something",
        "optional":true
    }
} 

I'm guessing this is used by SimpleSchema to handle Arrays as type.

The issue I encountered was when I later reusing this example object (and adding some new fields) that the something.$ was still present.

With this new ruleset the SimpleSchema will no longer accept an Array of strings.

// reusing the example variable
var otherSchema = new SimpleSchema(example);

var valid = otherSchema.newContext().validate({ 
    something: ['hello', 'world'] 
});

valid will be false and the following errors will be present:

[
    { 
        name: 'something.0',
        type: 'keyNotInSchema',
        message: 'something.0 is not allowed by the schema' 
    },
    { 
        name: 'something.1',
        type: 'keyNotInSchema',
        message: 'something.1 is not allowed by the schema' 
    }
]

Now I don't know if this is something known or something that should be fixed. It's something I came across and you should probably be vigilant for.

[aldeed]

@FakeYou, I pushed a fix, but I can't do a new release until they fix some issues with atmosphere. If you want to try it out, you can point to the master github repo. I didn't try out the fix, but I'm cloning the schema argument now, so I assume that will prevent the modifications you mention.

[aldeed]

Also, you could nest/combine the SimpleSchema instances instead of the objects, and that would work around your issue.

[aldeed]

New release with this fix is available now.

[andrenanninga]

Thanks I'll check it out.

I did notice you are using the underscore .clone method which only does a shallow clone so it still may prove a problem with nested schemas.

[aldeed]

I didn't test, but I'm pretty sure nested/combined schemas are fine because it just grabs the internal schemas and merges them, and the internal schemas, in turn, will have been cloned already.