Add field constraint indicator for uniqueItems #1423
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
RomanHotsiy
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2020
RomanHotsiy
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2020
* Add field constraint indicator for uniqueItems Resolves #1353 * Update src/components/Fields/FieldContstraints.tsx Co-authored-by: Roman Hotsiy <gotsijroman@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hello,
Fixes #1353.
Schemas which define
uniqueItemsshould now generate a field constraint indicator.For the example provided in the linked issue, the visual output looks like the following:
I also noticed
ArraySchematries to indicate array-type constraints. Specifically, it only covers theminItemsandmaxItemsconstraints.redoc/src/components/Schema/ArraySchema.tsx
Line 21 in 1fdfd13
I haven't dug too deeply into this, but with a simple schema such as:
I'd expect to see something like the following (based on the code), but I don't:
Anyway, I'm happy to follow-up and do something about the latter if it's indeed unexpected behaviour.