Open kculmback opened 5 years ago
Available in current release
@mikeerickson @igor875126 trim() function not defined for integer values.
(node:7608) UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: TypeError: val.trim is not a function at Rule.digits [as fn] (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\rules.js:376:49) at Rule._apply (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\rules.js:634:15) at Rule.validate (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\rules.js:616:36) at F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\validator.js:114:14 at Validator.checkAsync (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\validator.js:137:63) at Validator.passes (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\validatorjs\src\validator.js:495:19) at validator (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\lib\validator.js:4:14) at signup (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\validation\customer\customer_auth.js:12:9) at Layer.handle [as handle_request] (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\express\lib\router\layer.js:95:5) at next (F:\Workspace\node-barebone\node_modules\express\lib\router\route.js:137:13) (Use
node --trace-warnings ...to show where the warning was created) (node:7608) UnhandledPromiseRejectionWarning: Unhandled promise rejection. This error originated either by throwing inside of an async function without a catch block, or by rejecting a promise which was not handled with .catch(). To terminate the node process on unhandled promise rejection, use the CLI flag
--unhandled-rejections=strict(see https://nodejs.org/api/cli.html#cli_unhandled_rejections_mode). (rejection id: 1) (node:7608) [DEP0018] DeprecationWarning: Unhandled promise rejections are deprecated. In the future, promise rejections that are not handled will terminate the Node.js process with a non-zero exit code.
I can confirm the trim() function not defined for integer values @amal-chacko-7 has reported. Looks like this needs more work. @mikeerickson request reopen
@markwbrown i have reopened this issue and will look closer into get this resolved internally. We are preparing a new version and will see to it that this issue is resolved according
Using the rule 'digits:5' as part of validating zip codes. When testing, the rule allows for spaces in the zip code, which it shouldn't. For example
9980
passes validation.