Skip populate function proposal in Experimental_ArrayMinItems

[MarekBodingerBA]

Reasons for making this change

As we use our custom implementation of file upload, we would like to have case-by-case method how to control population of arrays in Experimental_ArrayMinItems (and there might be need from others with advanced usages).

Our files implementation yields this schema:
https://github.com/bratislava/konto.bratislava.sk/blob/8ce56b7fa4a62c7dd67351b617ba5ad13bc363b8/next/schema-generator/generator/functions.ts#L372

We would like to use { populate: 'requiredOnly' }. It works fine for our multiselects and checkbox group, as they are handled by the isMultiSelect condition, but it populates our files array with [null]. Therefore I would like to implement skipPopulate (name is up for consideration) function that would allow us to have a custom logic to skip population similar to what isMultiSelect does.

As a temporary solution, we have our own fork that allows us to add overrideArrayMinItemsBehaviour to schema, but this might be better and more scalable solution.

What do you think? Should I continue with this idea?

Checklist

• I'm updating documentation
  • I've checked the rendering of the Markdown text I've added
• I'm adding or updating code
  • I've added and/or updated tests. I've run npm run test:update to update snapshots, if needed.
  • I've updated docs if needed
  • I've updated the changelog with a description of the PR
• I'm adding a new feature
  • I've updated the playground with an example use of the feature

[heath-freenome]

@MarekBodingerBA I like the concept. The name skipPopulate might be confusing, especially as someone could think it is a boolean. How does the name computeSkipPopulate sound? Please make sure to update documentation and provide an example in the playground. And maintain 100% test coverage for these changes. And finally, update the CHANGELOG.md under the 5.18.0 section. If you can get this in within the next week we can release right afterwards

[MarekBodingerBA]

Perfect, that all makes sense!

However, how should I proceed with a playground example? People should provide their own code. I am not sure I should add code input to the playground.

[heath-freenome]

Perfect, that all makes sense!

However, how should I proceed with a playground example? People should provide their own code. I am not sure I should add code input to the playground.

Great question! Thinking about it more, this isn't a toggle on situation like the rest of the experimental options. So maybe a playground example just doesn't make sense.

[MarekBodingerBA]

Implemented as you requested, feel free to give a feedback.

[heath-freenome]

@MarekBodinger Great work... I've added a few suggetions for documentation changes. Also, can you rebase and resolve conflicts

[MarekBodingerBA]

@MarekBodinger Great work... I've added a few suggetions for documentation changes. Also, can you rebase and resolve conflicts

Thank you, I committed the suggestions and merged main.