Skip to content

docs: revert cross-field validation to and! with simple comparison; add note for validated-field checks #33

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
Copilot wants to merge 2 commits into from
Closed

docs: revert cross-field validation to and! with simple comparison; add note for validated-field checks #33

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
67e8e8a
Initial plan
Copilot Mar 3, 2026
ced93a8
docs: revert cross-field validation to and! with simple comparison an…
Copilot Mar 3, 2026
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
15 changes: 7 additions & 8 deletions README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -953,22 +953,21 @@ module Example.Types
qed
}

let! _ = validation {
withValue (name, username)
disputeWithFact NameMatchesUsername (fun (n, u) ->
match n with
| Some nameVal -> Name.unwrap nameVal <> Username.unwrap u
| None -> true
)
and! _ = validation {
withValue vm
disputeWithFact NameMatchesUsername (fun a -> a.Name <> a.Username)
qed
}

return { NewUser.name = name; username = username; password = password; emailAddress = emailAddress; }
} |> fromVCtx
```

We need to include this in the `let!` chain but we can ignore the result.
We need to include this in the `and!` chain but we can ignore the result.
Our complex type is validated.

> **Note:** The example above compares the raw view model values before any validation occurs. If you need to perform cross-field checks on values that have already been individually validated (e.g., comparing two validated fields), see the [Cross-Field Validation](#cross-field-validation) section.

However, as far as complex types go, ours is fairly simple
Let's try validating a type nested inside another type.

Expand Down