Report multiple type errors about ow

[SamVerschueren]

I want to pick this one up as I need it :). Will try to assign some of my time to it.

[SamVerschueren]

Have you thought about how we could do this? Should we create one ArgumentError with a list of error messages? Or should we create one ArgumentError per error and wrap it inside another error?

It's pretty straight forward to implement, we just have to come up with the best way of doing this :).

[sindresorhus]

The error is meant for humans, so I think it should just be a nicely formatted text list of error messages in the returned error.message.

[IssueHuntBot]

@issuehuntfest has funded $60.00 to this issue. See it on IssueHunt

[GentileFulvio]

Any progress on this one ? @SamVerschueren are you still on this issue ? Seems like a nice feature and fun pretty fun to check it out. Question is do we want this as default behavior or should there be some config triggering this behavior ? It seems like a breaking change though if we default

[sindresorhus]

It should be the default. We can consider making it opt-out if someone complains.

---

Keep in mind: This issue has a bounty, so it's expected that the person working on this does a good effort on it.

[vladfrangu]

Hey! I think I'll actually look into this tomorrow (and include a fix for that TODO 👀) if that's ok. Is anyone else working on this? If so, I don't wanna step over their work

[sindresorhus]

No one is working on this. Just know that this issue has a bounty, so it's expected that you to do a good effort and think through the problem thoroughly. Also tests and docs.

[issuehunt-oss]

@sindresorhus has rewarded $54.00 to @vladfrangu. See it on IssueHunt

• 💰 Total deposit: $60.00
• 🎉 Repository reward(0%): $0.00
• 🔧 Service fee(10%): $6.00

[karlhorky]

Would it be possible to also report multiple errors if the object doesn't match?

Current behavior:

> ow({a: 2, b: 'a'}, ow.object.exactShape({a: ow.string, b: ow.number}))
Uncaught:
ArgumentError: Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object
    at ow (/Users/k/p/courses/node_modules/ow/dist/index.js:29:28) {
  validationErrors: Map(1) {
    'object' => Set(1) {
      'Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object'
    }
  }
}

> ow({a: '2', b: 'a'}, ow.object.exactShape({a: ow.string, b: ow.number}))
Uncaught:
ArgumentError: Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object
    at ow (/Users/k/p/courses/node_modules/ow/dist/index.js:29:28) {
  validationErrors: Map(1) {
    'object' => Set(1) {
      'Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object'
    }
  }
}

Suggested behavior:

> ow({a: 2, b: 'a'}, ow.object.exactShape({a: ow.string, b: ow.number}))
Uncaught:
ArgumentError: Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object
Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object
    at ow (/Users/k/p/courses/node_modules/ow/dist/index.js:29:28) {
  validationErrors: Map(1) {
    'object' => Set(2) {
      'Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object',
      'Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object'
    }
  }
}

---

Even nicer would be to get the errors back in the shape of the original object:

> ow({a: 2, b: 'a'}, ow.object.exactShape({a: ow.string, b: ow.number}))
Uncaught:
ArgumentError: Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object
Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object
    at ow (/Users/k/p/courses/node_modules/ow/dist/index.js:29:28) {
  validationErrors: Object {
      a: 'Expected property `a` to be of type `string` but received type `number` in object',
      b: 'Expected property `b` to be of type `number` but received type `string` in object'
  }
}

[sindresorhus]

It's in general better to open a new issue than to comment on old closed issues.

[karlhorky]

Definitely agree, just wanted to get the sentiment of the team before taking the effort to open a new issue.

But if it's preferred to have that discussion elsewhere, understood.

Created a new issue: #237