Enable multiple config options for jest-validate

[thymikee]

Do you want to request a feature or report a bug?
Feature

What is the current behavior?
Currently jest-validate takes real JS object as a configuration sample, which doesn't scale to one config option having multiple possible values

What is the expected behavior?
Being able to validate things like this:

const config = {
  regularValue: string,
  multiValueOption: string | Array<string>
}

This can be fixed by introducing utility functions into jest-validate

// sampleConfig.js
import {multiple} from 'jest-validate';

module.exports = {
  regularOption: 'string',
  multiValueOption: multiple(['string', ['string1', 'string2']])
}

Where multiple would have it's unique $$typeof identifier for which we could test.
This is however just a proposal of the API, so if anyone has better ideas, this is right place to do so :)

cc @rogeliog

[rogeliog]

I like this approach

[cpojer]

I'd call it either, and/or mirror React's prop-types API

[rogeliog]

@thymikee @cpojer if we are going to support (either|oneOf) what is your suggestion for error messages?

This is what we currently show:

      ● Validation Error:

        Option "displayName" must be of type:
          string
        but instead received:
          number

        Example:
        {
          "displayName": "myProject"
        }

Would it be something like this?

      ● Validation Error:
        Option "displayName" must be one of the following types:
        
            Option can be of type:
              string
            but instead received:
              number

            Example:
            {
              "displayName": "myProject"
            }


            Option can be of type:
              object
            but instead received:
              number

            Example:
            {
              "displayName": { default: "myProject", interactive: "emoji" }
            }

[cpojer]

Ideally the example will show both possibilities collapsed in one error message, duplicating it may be easier in code but looks worse.

[SimenB]

@thymikee closed by #7207?

[thymikee]

yes!

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically locked since there has not been any recent activity after it was closed. Please open a new issue for related bugs.
Please note this issue tracker is not a help forum. We recommend using StackOverflow or our discord channel for questions.