Conversation
|
Hi! |
|
Sorry for the delay. I like this, but it may represent a subtle change in behaviour. I'm trying to figure out whether it will screw up anybody's existing validation. The spec's understandably silent on |
|
No worries, it was only to make sure you've seen it ;) I agree, it introduce a very subtle change, but as you said, it was not specified. |
|
+1 |
|
This is actually the only thing keeping me from using this module :) |
|
Hi! |
|
I just made a PR for this same issue without noticing this one. Seems like this is a fix that a lot of people need! |
|
Yes, this is the third PR on the topic. I think we are just waiting for @Bartvds to confirm that it can be merged. |
|
Any progress on the merge of PR? |
This pull-request allow to validate objects with properties set to
undefinedif the properties are not required.It seems coherent with this:
So with this schema:
we should have: