Add more test coverage

[martijn00]

Connection with issue(s)

Close #???

Connected to #???

Solution description

Screenshots or Videos

To Do

• [ ] Read contributing guide
• [ ] Check the original issue to confirm it is fully satisfied
• [ ] Add solution description to help guide reviewers
• [ ] Add unit test to verify new or fixed behaviour
• [ ] If apply, add documentation to code properties and package readme

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 99.20%. Comparing base (995b030) to head (1d15895).

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #126 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 95.11% 99.20% +4.09% ========================================== Files 94 95 +1 Lines 1024 1011 -13 ========================================== + Hits 974 1003 +29 + Misses 50 8 -42 ``` | [Flag](https://app.codecov.io/gh/flutter-form-builder-ecosystem/form_builder_validators/pull/126/flags?src=pr&el=flags&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=flutter-form-builder-ecosystem) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [unittests](https://app.codecov.io/gh/flutter-form-builder-ecosystem/form_builder_validators/pull/126/flags?src=pr&el=flag&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=flutter-form-builder-ecosystem) | `99.20% <100.00%> (+4.09%)` | :arrow_up: | Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. [Click here](https://docs.codecov.io/docs/carryforward-flags?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=flutter-form-builder-ecosystem#carryforward-flags-in-the-pull-request-comment) to find out more.

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[martijn00]

Yes it still makes sense because they use the validate methods and other users can extend them.

[deandreamatias]

Yes it still makes sense because they use the validate methods and other users can extend them.

Yeah, but maybe can create a CoreValidator without translatedErrorText and BaseValidator extends this? I don't if this could be work.

Ignore a thing that won't be used, I don't see like a good practice

[martijn00]

@deandreamatias I've implemented this now. Can you check and merge?