Replies: 1 comment 1 reply
-
I like this idea, and also feels easy to implement. One potential caveat here is lack of actual JSON in some cases, for example tag-based validation is applied also to Perhaps such scenario might be relevant for other transports, or if we want to stick to |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
1 reply
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
-
I've tried to test usecases in isolation without the http-transport and request-decoding. This is easy but misses the schema validation. The validation seems to be bound to the the http-request if I did not miss something. This problem would also be the case if I would try to reuse a usecase f.e. in a CLI-context.
To me it seems like mapping and validation are two separate concerns. Ideally I would be able to
Interact
with ausecase
and the validation would be done automagically as, at least to me, it's part of the business logic.f.e.:
Alternatively an API like this would also be fine so that I would be able to validate on a case by case basis:
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions