Fix group field validation

[leplatrem]

I'm stuck with group fields, and I'm currently thinking of getting rid of them.

My first idea was just to allow grouping of fields, in a way that does not affect their individual validation at all.

For example, the following model :

{name: 'person',
 fields: [
    {name: 'age', type: 'int'},
    {description: 'address',
     type: 'group',
     fields: [{name: 'street', type: 'string'},
              {name: 'city', type: 'string'}]
    }
 ]
}

could validate this record

{age: 12, street: 'bakery', city: 'london'}

I must admit that the group field type I had in mind belongs more to the presentation layer (grouping widgets in forms) than the model layer.

The current implementation is completely wrong : it does not validate at all ! (see #189, #192)

I tried to hack around, but I cannot find I found a way to flatten the fields list (i.e. expending the fields at the model level with the ones from the group fields).

And if we validate in a dict (e.g. {age: 12, '': {street: 'bakery', city: 'london'}}), then there is no difference with the object field, which is well tested and rather intuitive...

Any idea ? Opposition to group field type removal ?

[almet]

Hmm, interesting. How one could test that the items of a list follow some semantics (for instance that they're integers)?

I may not understand completely how all this work, and I think that having a full fledged documentation about how do deal with this would be useful.

Also (might be related), I'm currently playing a bit with jsonschema, we might take some of their logic. See https://spacetelescope.github.io/understanding-json-schema/reference/array.html for instance.

[leplatrem]

What you mention here (a list of integers) was implemented in https://github.com/spiral-project/daybed/pull/161 and it has nothing to do with this PR :)

This one is about fixing the validation of groups of fields (see #11, #88)

[Natim]

All I am asking is please don't remove the group fields. We are using it for n1k0/kept and I was so happy to find it. I think we should do recursive validation for this and handle group field as if it was an anonymous model inside a model

[leplatrem]

You were happy to find it because it was the only field type whose validation was not working. See #192.

What you need for kept is object, and it already does recursive validation of anonymous models!

[Natim]

Can you please give me the model definition you are taking about? Le 9 août 2014 09:36, "Mathieu Leplatre" notifications@github.com a écrit :

You were happy to find it because it was the only field type whose validation was not working. See #192 https://github.com/spiral-project/daybed/issues/192.

What you need for kept is object, and it already does recursive validation of anonymous models!

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/spiral-project/daybed/pull/193#issuecomment-51679944.

[leplatrem]

I merge and close this, since this PR is only a fix on existing code and should not introduce more confusion.

I will take the time to write some documentation of the fields.

@Natim the model for kept can be something like this :

   'tasks': {
       'type': 'list',
       'itemtype': 'object',
       'parameters': {
            'fields': [
                {'type': u'enum',
                 'name': u'status',
                 'choices': [u'todo', u'done']}
            ]
       }
   }