Created 'OR' rule

[Bullrich]

Hello, and welcome to Javier's list of new changes. Today, we have a new feature: The OR rule

List of changes

• Created OR rule
  • This resolves Create OR rule #12
  • The OR rule verifies that one of the conditions have been fulfilled.
    • When a condition was fulfilled, it continues the loop to the next rule
      • Should this be a "break" instead?
    • When the OR rule fails, it shows all the users it needs a review but it only shows the amount of missing reviews using the sub condition with the minimum amount of reviews needed.
    • Created lots of test.
      • This are mainly a copy and modification of AND as they share logic and structure.

[rzadp]

When a condition was fulfilled, it continues the loop to the next rule
Should this be a "break" instead?

If I understand the context, I think it shouldn't be a break, continue is correct.
I guess the natural assumption is that all of the top-level rules are implicitly treated as AND.

[mutantcornholio]

Kinda feels like these rules can be joined so the validation would work in one execution

[Bullrich]

I am afraid I don't follow. What do you mean by joined? Could you please show me an example?

I want to keep the "else" to throw if the rule is invalid, but overall, I don't worry much about removing the hardcoded code as, maybe with one or two exception, I don't think we will be adding more cases.

[mutantcornholio]

I mean, you validate config, and then validate each rule independently.
Can't we just join it all in a single schema to validate in one call?

[Bullrich]

Ah yeah, I see your point.

It is because the "Basic" rule has different parameters, so I thought it would be easier to do:

if (rule.type === "basic")
    basicCheck();
else if (rule.type !== "basic")
    notBasicCheck();

And that's is simply because I don't know how to make a conditional rule with JOI in which:

1. If the type string has the value basic it should use a particular schema type
2. if the type string does not have the value basic it needs to have a different schema validating it.

I don't know how to do a conditional check like that. If you do know, please let me know, as I have spend some time researching that and decided to go for the simplest solution instead of fighting for the most elegant one.

I'll be merging this PR as the union should be handled in a different PR.

[mutantcornholio]

You mean like Joi.alternatives()?

const BasicSchema = Joi.object({
   type: "basic",  
   data: Joi.object({a: Joi.string()})
  });

const NonBasicSchema = Joi.object({
    // I'm personally more inclined to have positive checks instead
    type: Joi.any().not("basic"), 
    data: Joi.object({b: Joi.string()})
  });

Joi.alternatives().try(BasicSchema, NonBasicSchema);