NEW API (has && get) in new Map()

[jojojojojoj5564656465465]

[fabian-hiller]

Great idea! I would probably name these actions hasItem and getItem, so they match with other actions like mapItems and findItem. What do you think?

import * as v from 'valibot';

const Schema = v.pipe(
  v.map(v.string(), v.number()),
  v.hasItem('foo', 'Custom error message!')
);

[jojojojojoj5564656465465]

Hi,

I would like to share some improvement suggestions for valibot:

1. Regarding API naming:

• I suggest simplifying to more explicit names like map_get, array_filter, array_split
• map_has could be merged with map_get since the functionality would be redundant

2. Community aspect:

• It would be valuable to have a dedicated community page
• This would encourage third-party extension development compatible with valibot
• Example: different developers could create their own parsers (like s.parse() or e.parse()) while maintaining compatibility with the valibot ecosystem

The goal is to keep the API simple and intuitive while fostering the growth of an active community around the project.

What are your thoughts on this?

Best regards

[fabian-hiller]

I suggest simplifying to more explicit names like map_get, array_filter, array_split

The idea is good, but there are some drawbacks. Something like map_has would use exactly the same implementation as set_has. So it makes more sense to call it hasItem and make it compatible with maps and sets. That's also how our other actions like minLength work. Instead of string_min and array_min there is just minLength which can be used for both.

It would be valuable to have a dedicated community page

Do you mean something like our ecosystem page? Or do you mean a special guide for library authors that explains how to create libraries on top of Valibot? We also have a Discord community server.

https://valibot.dev/guides/ecosystem/

[jojojojojoj5564656465465]

hasItem could works with object ?

const check = (x:string): => x in obj

for map//
v.custom((input) =>
!!Object.keys(size).find((e) => e === input)
),

[fabian-hiller]

Probably not, it will only work with objects that contain a .has(...) method like a map or a set.