feat request: Schema.prototype.meta(key, value)

[undefined-moe]

const bar = Schema.dict(Schema.string().meta(key, value))

seems much better than

const foo = Schema.string();
foo.meta || = {};
foo.meta[key] = value
const bar = Schema.dict(foo)

[shigma]

schema.meta is not designed to be extensible, and the requested feature may lead to incompatible behavior. If you need more meta fields, please specify your needs directly.

[undefined-moe]

1. Schema.string().pattern(regex)
2. Schema.string().examples(values)
3. Schema.string().deprecated()
4. Schema.array().minLength(min).maxLength(max)

[undefined-moe]

related to #8 and #11 .

[shigma]

None of the ones you mentioned should be meta properties. You can request these features in separate issues.

[shigma]

Even if they are meta properties, I don't think this should be freely specified by the user. All constraints should be given by methods on the prototype chain.

[undefined-moe]

As meta field designed to be a dict with no type limitations, It should allow users store whatever they want, JSON-safe of course, and simply transmit the schema and what they need between backend and frontend. It provides a possibility. Otherwise, if an extra field is really needed in some special case, users might use something like Schema.string().description('{"foo":1,"bar":true}') and decode them in client-side, which I think would be much worse.

[shigma]

You have already given a workaround at the beginning of this issue, so the requested API is not necessary. Instead, the requested API increases vulnerability both in typings and runtime. If you just need schema.example() or other methods, PRs are always welcome.