Do we need an API to define that the onChange validator is launched also on mount?

[Balastrong]

In some cases we might want our form to run the onChange validator as soon as the component mounts, do we need a specific API to handle that?

After #726 (version 0.34.4) you can easily achieve that by defining your validating function and passing it to both validators

function myValidator () { ... }

validators={{
    onMount: myValidator,
    onChange: myValidator,
}}

This will set canSubmit to false if there are errors but will not set isTouched to fields so the user can control if they want to show the error or not.

(See Stackblitz with zod)

Is that enough or we need something at Form/Field level to declare that? Suggestions and ideas are welcome!

[rik-iso]

I think so. I'm having to do this right now (little cludgy workaround using radashi's objectify, but obviously another helper could be written):

validators={objectify(['onMount', 'onBlur'], identity, () =>
   v.pipe(v.number(), v.minValue(1), v.maxValue(999))
)}

I don't think it's particularly ideal.

[Balastrong]

Using an extra library just for that definitely seems overkill and shouldn't be needed.

Does it work with something like that?

const numberSchema = v.pipe(v.number(), v.minValue(1), v.maxValue(999))

validators={{
  onMount: numberSchema,
  onChange: numberSchema,
}}

[rik-iso]

Oh yeah it does, I was just using that library because we already had it.

[luap2703]

We definitely need an api for this! :)

We are running quite complex forms with plenty of fields (thus everything is quite typescript heavy). It would be perhaps best to have a flag that is onAny: () => {} and/or directly passing a function into validators={} that does that job.

[AhsanRaza007]

any updates on this?

[tjbrennan]

I also want to point out that using two validators this way results in duplicate error messages for empty required fields where the user has clicked into an input and clicked away without entering a value.

[pleunv]

Just ran into this as well. Not sure if this is a regression of #726 but definitely unexpected. Have to check the actual values for now to determine validity on initial render.