Is "ref" a reserved word?

[oltodo]

Hello,

I'm trying to move from version 7.15.4 to 7.12.5 and I observe a strange behavior. Actually, it seems that using the term ref as a form's field prevents the isDirty state value from being properly updated. When I change it for another term, it works fine.

Sorry because I've not been able to reproduce this issue in a codesanbox instance. What I can say is that my form is quite complex. It looks something like:

{
  id: '...',
  blocks: [
    {
      type: 'foo',
      data: {
        items: [{
          ref: '...', // <- the issue
          title: '...'
        }]
      }
    },
    {
      type: 'bar',
      data: {
        // other kind of data
      }
    },
    {
      type: 'foo',
      data: {
        // ...
      }
    }
    // and so on...
  ]
}

Also I use Yup as form validator.

I realize it could be a little bit tricky to investigate basing on the above description. You can take a look on the repo I've been working on. Thanks 😉 .

[bluebill1049]

yes, ref is a reserved word for input reference.

[davbrito]

There should be a runtime warning when using "ref" as a field name. And a mention on the docs.

[man-trackunit]

For me ref makes sense to be reserved but type also seems reserved which haunts me a bit since it's one of the top 5 most important property keys on pur data model 🙈