paul / dry-transaction-extra Goto Github PK

Hi, a big thanks for this gem.

I just watched your talk from RubyConf 2021 and came to your github profile looking to see if you had shared any of the custom step functions you talked about.

Boy was I lucky that this gem has just been created a month ago.

I understand that this gem is very new, but I was just wondering if you were intending to add async and authorize step functions in future. I saw that you had implemented them previously in a gist

I also note the README does also provide an example of how you might use validation before running async jobs, is this your preferred approach now, rather than using a custom step function?

Anyway, if adding these is not part of your future plans and you have no objection to them being included, I wondered if I might try adding them in a PR?

Cheers, Dylan

I have been using the validation extension, however I have noticed that it has to be explicitly called on the object otherwise it is not run.

The documentation reads

In addition to the valid step adapter, Dry::Transaction::Extra has support for an explicit "pre-flight" validation that runs as the first step.

class CreateUser
  include Dry::Transaction
  include Dry::Transaction::Extra
  load_extensions :validation

  validate do
    params do
      required(:name).filled(:string)
      optional(:email).maybe(:string)
    end
  end

  step :create_user
end

This is useful if you want to, for example, run the transaction as an async background job, but want to first verify the arguments to the job before enqueueing it. If the job is going to fail anyway, why bother creating it in the first place?

result = CreateUser.validator.new.call(params)
CreateUserJob.perform_async(params) unless result.failure?

Problem

Correct me If I am misunderstanding, but I took this to read that the validation will automatically be run as the first step when calling CreateUser.new.call(params) in addition to being able to call it explicitly with CreateUser.validator.new.call(params)

I could instead use the valid step function, however for small uncomplicated validations I find the brief extension syntax and lack of an additional file to be easier.