added support for promises

[raisch]

Extends Joi.validate() to return an ES6-compliant "resolve" or "reject" Promise,
configureable via options.

If options.asPromise is true, joi.validate() returns Promise.resolve(value)
on success and Promise.reject(errors) on failure.

If optional options.withPromises is set to an ES6 Promise Specification compliant
Promise function, it will be used instead of the default Promise implementation,
(which is native Promise on ES6 platforms or require('es6-promise').polyfill()).

Supports any ES6 compliant Promise implementation that provides Promise.resolve()
and Promise.reject().

Tests provided for:

• bluebird
• q
• when
• vow
• es6-promise (with polyfill)

README.md updated with usage, working examples, and links to tested Promise modules
and pertinent specs.

[Marsup]

Sorry but I don't think I'll merge that. It's easy enough to promisify in about 5 lines of code at most, and I don't want to add another dependency while there's an effort to limit those to allow browserification.

[DavidTPate]

You can even Promisify in 1 line (in case someone needs it).

[raisch]

If you want to use bluebird. ;)

[raisch]

Marsup, thanks for considering it.

I'll refactor it into an npm module.

Regarding browserify-isation... when ES6 drops in the browsers, you might reconsider since it defaults to using global.Promise.

[Marsup]

Currently there's no need at all, joi is fully synchronous whatever API you chose, I'll bother when async is supported.

[bookercodes]

@Marsup Is this still true? I'm a new Joi user and the fact that validate takes a callback had me thinking validate was asynchronous.

[Marsup]

Still true yes, the callback is just to be compatible with hapi's custom validation method.

[tjwebb]

Apologies for still being confused. Are you saying that I can just use joi synchronously, like value = joi.validate(stuff, schema)? I've only seen the async version in the docs, so I've been wrapping all my stuff in Promises. It'd be great if I didn't need to do that

[simon-p-r]

Yes Joi can be used sync or async

[mtharrison]

@simon-p-r @tjwebb Don't confuse accepts a callback parameter as being the same as asyncronous. Both of the following are synchronous:

Joi.validate({ a: 'a string' }, schema, (err, value) => { 

    ...
});


const result = Joi.validate({ a: 'a string' }, schema);

The first example accepts a callback, but that callback is called before the next line of code executes, there's no async behaviour yet in Joi.

[tjwebb]

Ah yes, sorry. I wasn't precise. But I understand the API better now,
thanks.

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Matt Harrison notifications@github.com
wrote:

Don't confuse accepts a callback parameter as being the same as
asyncronous. Both of the following are synchronous:

Joi.validate({ a: 'a string' }, schema, (err, value) => {

...

});

const result = Joi.validate({ a: 'a string' }, schema);

The first example accepts a callback, but that callback is called before
the next line of code executes, there's no async yet in Joi.

—
You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#636 (comment)

[simoami]

just to chime in on the "synchronous" callback. Its an anti-pattern! It's not others fault for not understanding that.

Here's a good article on it: http://markdawson.tumblr.com/post/43705616205/honour-thy-async-signature

[Marsup]

@simoami Late reply but you're wrong in your understanding of this article. What matters is consistency, you mustn't have callbacks called synchronously and asynchronously from the same function, and this is never happening in joi. I know well about this topic and it will change when joi supports asynchronous operations, but until then I'm fine with our current solution.

[KyleAMathews]

Could we update the README validation examples to be synchronous? It's only now, reading this, that I realized that validation could be synchronous. I think most people would want to use validation without a callback so the examples are confusing.

[Marsup]

Always open to documentation improvements. I hope the line will be less blurry whenever I manage to finish async validations though.

[AaronHarris]

I'm just curious, @Marsup are async validations actually on the roadmap for some future release? If so, is there a tracking issue? Thanks!

[Marsup]

It is, no issue because I have no need for it yet.

[lock]

This thread has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Please open a new issue for related bugs or questions following the new issue template instructions.