feat: add extendValidator

[btea]

Sometimes the type matches but the range does not match. I hope to give a clearer and more explicit error prompt.

[github-actions]

Size Report

Bundles

File	Size	Gzip	Brotli
runtime-dom.global.prod.js	100 kB	38 kB	34.2 kB
vue.global.prod.js	158 kB	57.8 kB	51.4 kB

Usages

Name	Size	Gzip	Brotli
createApp (CAPI only)	46.4 kB	18.2 kB	16.6 kB
createApp	54.3 kB	21.2 kB	19.3 kB
createSSRApp	58.5 kB	22.9 kB	20.9 kB
defineCustomElement	59.2 kB	22.8 kB	20.7 kB
overall	68.4 kB	26.3 kB	24 kB

[pkg-pr-new]

Open in Stackblitz

@vue/compiler-core

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/compiler-core@12738

@vue/compiler-dom

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/compiler-dom@12738

@vue/compiler-sfc

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/compiler-sfc@12738

@vue/reactivity

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/reactivity@12738

@vue/compiler-ssr

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/compiler-ssr@12738

@vue/runtime-core

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/runtime-core@12738

@vue/runtime-dom

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/runtime-dom@12738

@vue/server-renderer

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/server-renderer@12738

@vue/shared

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/shared@12738

vue

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/vue@12738

@vue/compat

npm i https://pkg.pr.new/@vue/compat@12738

commit: 942328e

[Justineo]

I'm afraid this would be a breaking change as returning a non-empty string used to mean validation success.

I like the idea and would love for Vue to include a built-in solution that allows developers to leverage existing utilities for handling prop validation errors. To be honest, I’ve always thought the custom validator should be named validate. If we can adopt this new name, it could open up new possibilities for refining the API. But I think this should be discussed in our RFC report first.

[btea]

Thanks for your reply.

I'm afraid this would be a breaking change as returning a non-empty string used to mean validation success.

Yes, this is indeed a problem.

To be honest, I’ve always thought the custom validator should be named validate. If we can adopt this new name, it could open up new possibilities for refining the API.

IMO, renaming existing properties will have a big impact. To avoid afferting users, we should either add a new method to customize the validation rules, or add a new parameter to the existing validator function for special handling.

But I think this should be discussed in our RFC report first.

Would you like me to create an issue in the RFC repository first?

[Justineo]

I'm not suggesting renaming, but add a new alternative with enhanced behavior.

And I believe a separate RFC thread is necessary.

[btea]

I'm not suggesting renaming, but add a new alternative with enhanced behavior.

Sorry, I misunderstood what you meant.

And I believe a separate RFC thread is necessary.

link vuejs/rfcs#739

[baiwusanyu-c]

I prefer to extend the parameters based on validator to control its behavior, and reduce the generation of new APIs while ensuring compatibility. Too many APIs are not necessarily a good thing. 🧐

[btea]

Yeah, at first I just wanted to simply expand the warning message, so I created this PR in a rough way.

After discussing with @jacekkarczmarczyk, I am still a little undecided about how to implement this requirement. Maybe we need to discuss it together and confirm it.