-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 3.5k
Final changes for parameter validation #7291
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.
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
69ee7e6
Make changes to convert.js
sproutleaf 81519e6
add parameter validation support for
sproutleaf b558be0
major changes
sproutleaf 194956e
delete printZodSchema function because it's not necessary and doesn't…
sproutleaf b2d98d7
Re-trigger GitHub Actions
sproutleaf b6e4366
remove zod validation error import
sproutleaf 3eef4cb
add documentation link in error message for cases where the user prov…
sproutleaf 9bb71ef
add function name in error message, remove suggestion to add/remove p…
sproutleaf File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do you know if we have enough info here to be able to log a link to the docs for the method the user tried to call? If the error is something like "Add more arguments", a link to the reference to see what's expected might be helpful. (Also not a blocker, but if it's possible to do, we can always make an issue for it and see if a community contributor is interested in taking it on)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's a great point, thank you for the suggestion! I just added a commit that would append a documentation link to the end of the error message for cases where the user provided too few / too many arguments. I think ideally I'd want to also make sure that the link is both valid and reachable before appending, but feel like that could be a TODO later since p5 documentation follows a pretty standard format, and I don't know how adding an async function in the code would affect it. For now, I think this would suffice.