error fixed #8109

Nitin2332 · 2025-09-24T15:50:18Z

Resolves #8104

PR Checklist

npm run lint passes
Inline reference is included / updated
Unit tests are included / updated

perminder-17 · 2025-09-24T17:06:11Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

    'Function': z.function(),
    'Integer': z.number().int(),
-    'Number': z.number(),
+    'Number': z.union([z.number(), z.literal(Infinity), z.literal(-Infinity)]),


was there's a reason to use this instead of z.number().or(z.literal(Infinity)) as per dave's suggestion?

z.number().or(z.literal(Infinity)) only allows finite numbers and Infinity, but not -Infinity.
z.union([z.number(), z.literal(Infinity), z.literal(-Infinity)]) allows finite numbers, Infinity, AND -Infinity.

Maybe this should be better alternative : z.number().or(z.literal(Infinity)).or(z.literal(-Infinity));

perminder-17

Hi @Nitin2332, sorry for the delay in reviewing this. I didn't got time to debug this.

After looking at the errors, which says:

  FAIL |unit|  test/unit/core/param_errors.js > Validate Params > validateParams: multi-format > color(): optional parameter, incorrect type
 FAIL |unit|  test/unit/core/param_errors.js > Validate Params > validateParams: multi-format > color(): extra parameter
 FAIL |unit|  test/unit/core/param_errors.js > Validate Params > validateParams: multi-format > color(): incorrect element type
AssertionError: expected '🌸 p5.js says: Expected number or con…' to equal '🌸 p5.js says: Expected number at the…'

Expected: "🌸 p5.js says: Expected number at the fourth parameter, but received string in p5.color()."
Received: "🌸 p5.js says: Expected number or constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values) at the fourth parameter, but received a in p5.color()."

Looks like your changes broke the friendly error string builder by turning every Number into a union (number | Infinity | -Infinity).

How?

Like before when it was z.number() the friendly error must be something like "Expected number but recived.......", now when you changed z.number to z.union([z.number(), z.literal(Infinity), z.literal(-Infinity)]), now we have two other literals as +-Infinity?

Here's only the catch, Infinity is treated as a number in javascript, but our zod schema mapped this as a literal z.literal(+-Infinity), that's why the message builder is looking it as a constant.

So, now the issue is that where we should get a message as

p5.js/src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

Line 432 in c35445c

    
           expectedTypes.add('constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values)');

, so just by adding infinity and -infinity, we are getting this error :

Expected: "🌸 p5.js says: Expected number at the fourth parameter, but received string in p5.color()."
Received: "🌸 p5.js says: Expected number or constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values) at the fourth parameter, but received a in p5.color()."

What should you can do to fix this?

So, tests wants just number instead of number or constant both to pass.

For that, you need to flatten the sub-issues of union and if you see numbers are present along with the literals (literals only with +-Infinity), delete the constant part.

Maybe it should be something like,

if( number && litralwithplusminusinfinity) {
expectedTypes.delete('constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values)');
}

Feel free to discuss or ask help if you face issues in fixing this. Thanks for your help.

perminder-17 · 2025-09-28T18:25:53Z

Also, tagging @davepagurek if you got any other fix for this?

davepagurek · 2025-09-28T18:36:25Z

ahh good catch, we will have to add a special case to handle the number-or-infinity union. that makes sense @perminder-17!

perminder-17

Hi @Nitin2332 , thanks for your work on this, but I think the code has some issues which I mentioned below. Can you please look and stick to the approach I mentioned above? Also, I am unclear with what approach you are looking at.

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:35:11Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

          }
+          // Handle nested union errors (e.g., Number type with number, Infinity, -Infinity)
+          else if (issue.code === 'invalid_union') {
+            issue.errors.forEach(nestedErr => {


The nested failure invalid_union is inside issue.unionErrors. See this doc: https://raftar.io/chene/interfaces/chene.z.ZodInvalidUnionIssue.html

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:35:44Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

+          // Handle nested union errors (e.g., Number type with number, Infinity, -Infinity)
+          else if (issue.code === 'invalid_union') {
+            issue.errors.forEach(nestedErr => {
+              const nestedIssue = nestedErr[0];


nestedErr won't be an array anymore, it's a zod object?

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:37:57Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

          // constant values in the error message, the error message will
          // direct users to the documentation.
+          // Note: Distinguish actual constants from special number values like Infinity/-Infinity
          else if (issue.code === 'invalid_value') {


Like you are checking inside the condition for literals infinity and -Infinity but when the union gets failed we check it from : issue.code === 'invalid_union'

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:38:42Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

          else if (issue.code === 'invalid_value') {
-            expectedTypes.add('constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values)');
-            actualType = args[error.path[0]];
+            const isSpecialNumber = issue.values && issue.values.some(val => val === Infinity || val === -Infinity);


You will never see literals, so you will always get isSpecialNumber to false.

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:39:52Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js

-            actualType = args[error.path[0]];
+            const isSpecialNumber = issue.values && issue.values.some(val => val === Infinity || val === -Infinity);
+            if (!isSpecialNumber) {
+              hasConstants = true;


since isSpecialNumber is always false, hasConstants will be always set to true.

perminder-17 · 2025-09-30T12:40:44Z

src/core/friendly_errors/param_validator.js


+      // Only add constants to expected types if constant validation actually failed
+      if (hasConstants) {
+        expectedTypes.add('constant (please refer to documentation for allowed values)');


I think the tests are accidentally passing, since hasConstants always comes out to true.

Nitin2332 added 2 commits September 24, 2025 21:14

error fixed

f6c457a

remove some change

edf1abc

perminder-17 reviewed Sep 24, 2025

View reviewed changes

Merge branch 'dev-2.0' into error-fix

a83005b

perminder-17 requested changes Sep 28, 2025

View reviewed changes

test case passed

2435228

Nitin2332 requested a review from perminder-17 September 29, 2025 15:24

perminder-17 requested changes Sep 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

error fixed #8109

error fixed #8109

Nitin2332 commented Sep 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

Nitin2332 Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 left a comment

Uh oh!

perminder-17 commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

davepagurek commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 left a comment

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 Sep 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

error fixed #8109

Are you sure you want to change the base?

error fixed #8109

Conversation

Nitin2332 commented Sep 24, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

PR Checklist

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

perminder-17 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

perminder-17 commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

davepagurek commented Sep 28, 2025

Uh oh!

perminder-17 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Nitin2332 commented Sep 24, 2025 •

edited

Loading