Question about computing the default value of an array for validation

[msarauer]

When computeDefaults is run with a schema of "type": "array", with "minItems": 1, and an item of "type":"string" and no default specified in the schema, it is returning a default of [undefined]. If the default is then used in validation because I left the input empty, this fails the validation, because it is looking for an array containing a string. I feel like the default form state should be returning undefined not in an array because I don't want this failing my validation when I don't enter a value, unless this property is in the required array.

[anthonycaron]

I totally agree with this ! I actually just posted the same comment on an issue that's just been closed.

[anthonycaron]

I will try now that this issue has been fixed if the test I wrote passes.

[anthonycaron]

It does not pass. I will open an issue.

[anthonycaron]

Actually I'm not sure anymore. I'm thinking maybe the default form state should be an empty array. Because when we add minItems on an array it's a way to say this field is required. If we initialize it with [] then when we try to validate it, ajv will spit an error saying we should have a least ${minItems} elements for this array, which is good I think.

[anthonycaron]

@heath-freenome Could you give us your opinion on this please ?

[heath-freenome]

Putting in undefined into the array should, if the UI is working correctly, cause an input to show up that should then have data provided for it. The new feature was added to only force this situation when the input is required. When it is not required, then the entire array missing min items will not be added and, hopefully, if no items have yet been entered, then the array will not be provided at all.

[anthonycaron]

So you mean that if the array is not required, then it shouldn't even appear in the data by default ?

[heath-freenome]

Yes, exactly. Hopefully that is acceptable.

[anthonycaron]

Yes it is for me :)

[anthonycaron]

But right now it's not working like this as shown in the issue I opened.