The `{{name}}` placeholder could represent different things depending on
the state of the Result, and referring to it as `{{name}}` seems
arbitrary. This commit changes it to `{{subject}}`, which is much more
generic and it describes well what that placeholder can mean.
They only know what message a rule produces when they try running it.
Including the messages in the documentation will make it easier for
people to know what to expect.
There are a couple of undocumented placeholders, but I can live with
that for now.
Besides the interface's name, everything already calls this type "Rule",
not "Validatable." This commit puts a stone on it and renames the
interface for better naming.
The method has been renamed some time ago, but I haven't updated the
documentation to cause less confusion. Now that I want to start updating
the documentation, I switched the default branch on GitHub to the latest
stable version, so I assume there will be less confusion in the
documentation, and I can start updating the docs for the next version.
Currently, the Property rule has a third parameter that allows the
validation of the wrapped rule to be optional, meaning that the
validation will only happen if the property exists. That parameter makes
the rule harder to understand at times.
I'm splitting the Property rule into Property, PropertyExists, and
PropertyOptional. That way, it becomes apparent when someone wants only
to validate whether a property exists or if they will validate the value
of the property only when it exists.
I deliberately didn't create an abstract class because those rules are
different enough not to have an abstraction. In fact, I can see myself
deleting the AbstractRelated after I refactor the KeyNested rule.
Signed-off-by: Henrique Moody <henriquemoody@gmail.com>
Currently, the Key rule has a third parameter that allows the validation
of the wrapped rule to be optional, meaning that the validation will
only happen if the key exists. That parameter makes the rule harder to
understand at times.
I'm splitting the Key rule into Key, KeyExists, and KeyOptional. That
way, it becomes apparent when someone wants only to validate whether a
key exists or if they're going to validate the value of the key only
when it exists.
I deliberately didn't create an abstract class because those rules are
different enough not to have an abstraction. In fact, I can see myself
deleting the "AbstractRelated" in the upcoming changes.
With these changes, the KeySet rule will not accept validating if the
key exists or validating the value only if the key exists. I should
refactor that soon, and I will likely need to create a common interface
for Key, KeyExists, and KeyOptional.
Signed-off-by: Henrique Moody <henriquemoody@gmail.com>
