Feature request: greaterThan, smallerThan

[MickL]

Great library! I only realized there is no possibility to add a "greater than" or "smaller than" validation. Of course, minValue() can be used, but it is not really accurate. E.g. when I want a number to be positive (> 0) I have to do minValue(0.001) but now 0.0001 would be invalid so I need to use a very small number minValue(0.0000001) but still a smaller number that is positive would be invalid.

Therefor I would like to add a feature request to add:

• greaterThan(), or gt()
• lessThan(), or lt()
• Optional: I found positive() from Zod very useful, but it is just a more humanly readable version greaterThan(0)

[fabian-hiller]

Thank you for creating this issue. I agree that we should add such actions. I am just unsure about the naming. It would be great if they would match somehow with minValue and maxValue.

[MickL]

Maybe:

• valueGreaterThan
• valueGt
• greaterThanValue
• gtValue

[fabian-hiller]

Feel free to create a PR with gtValue and stValue.

[fabian-hiller]

What is more common? "smaller than" or "less than"? Maybe we should use ltValue instead of stValue.

[MickL]

Sorry it should be less than, not smaller than. See for example https://orm.drizzle.team/docs/operators#lt

I am afraid I will not have the time to get in the project and make a PR.

[fabian-hiller]

Don't worry. I am already thankful for your contribution. I am sure someone else will work on it soon.

[EltonLobo07]

I'll work on adding ltValue & gtValue. I would recommend using a pattern like shown here till I complete adding the actions. The expected field of the issue might not make sense (Eg: parsing -1 would set expected to ≥0 and 0 to !0) but if the expected field is not used, it does the job.

[fabian-hiller]

This has been implemented by Elton in #978 and #985 over the last few weeks and will probably be reviewed and merged soon.