-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 583
fix(form-core): establish Field-over-Form prioritization for isDefaultValue and resets #2006
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Open
Kyujenius
wants to merge
5
commits into
TanStack:main
Choose a base branch
from
Kyujenius:fix/isDefaultValue-logic
base: main
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
+135
−21
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
4567071
fix(form-core): unify prioritized default logic for isDefaultValue an…
Kyujenius 75dbab5
ci: apply automated fixes and generate docs
autofix-ci[bot] 9dead10
chore(form-core): suppress eslint false positives for optional chaining
Kyujenius 53da788
test(form-core): add coverage for field-level defaultValue priority i…
Kyujenius 699134c
refactor(form-core): remove unnecessary eslint-disable for optional c…
Kyujenius File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| '@tanstack/form-core': minor | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| Introduced a **Prioritized Default System** that ensures consistency between field metadata and form reset behavior. This change prioritizes field-level default values over form-level defaults across `isDefaultValue` derivation, `form.reset()`, and `form.resetField()`. This ensures that field metadata accurately reflects the state the form would return to upon reset and prevents `undefined` from being incorrectly treated as a default when a value is explicitly specified. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reminder to self: Check git blame.
I don't this change is good, but I want to know the context of why it was explicitly listed as unit test.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@LeCarbonator Thanks for taking the time to review this!
I checked the git blame - this test was intentionally written this way in PR #1456 It wasn't a mistake, so I want to be careful here.
But I think there's a philosophical question: What should "default" mean when form-level and field-level disagree?
The Two Interpretations
Original (OR logic): "Both are defaults"
Proposed (?? logic): "The one
reset()uses is THE default"Why I Lean Toward the Proposed Logic
In #1081, explained the purpose of
isDefaultValue:RHF's
isDirtyistruewhencurrentValue !== defaultValue. A form has exactly one clean state.With the original OR logic:
isDefaultValueistruefor both'test'and'another-test'!isDefaultValueisfalsefor both valuesThat feels inconsistent with RHF's model. A form should have one default state, not two.
The Practical Problem
With OR logic, if value is
'test'(form-level default):isDefaultValue→true→ user skips resetreset()would actually change the value to'another-test'The user gets misleading information.
I Could Be Wrong
I understand the original design might have had reasons I'm not aware of. Maybe there are use cases where treating both as "default" makes sense. What's your take on this?