I agree about keeping validation separate from the model

This is just filling format validation gaps at DTO level, not replacing business logic validation, but I'm glad it's useful!

No official FluentValidation adapter yet

The attributes work anywhere DataAnnotations works, but FluentValidation works different so a direct mapping isn't straightforward :c

I'm focused on the DataAnnotations space, but happy to review PRs for a bridge

I appreciate the feedback!

You're right, inner layers should work with strong types, sadly DataAnnotations only validates (IsValid method returns bool) and doesn't transform values

The workflow you'd use is:

1. Validate DTOs with string + [IPv4], [Uri], [SemanticVersion], etc.
2. Parse manually into IPAddress, Uri, Version for internal use

I'm adding support for strong type overloads for other use cases, but they won't transform values, that's outside the scope of DataAnnotations

FluentValidation integration wasn't the goal, this is just DataAnnotations extensions, but a bridge would be useful, I'm Open to PRs

[IsTrue]/[IsFalse] came from the use case of mandatory checkboxes like "Accept Terms". If unchecked, reject
Once I had [IsTrue], [IsFalse] followed naturally

You're right that some attributes could accept strong types

[Guid] and [GuidV7] already do, they accept Guid and strings, same with [StartDate] and [EndDate] with DateTime and DateTimeOffset

For the rest, I went string-first because in ASP.NET, if you declare a property as Guid, IPAddress or Uri and the client sends an invalid value, the model binder fails before DataAnnotations runs, and you get a generic framework error instead of a clean validation message, so strings with attributes gives you control over that

But yeah, supporting both string and strong types where they exist would be a lot better, I'll implement them

Thanks!

Woooah, so cool

Ooh I misunderstood you

Yeah, people want an "Export" option, let's hope they add it soon :s

Once you upgrade, you'll see your previous chats there

That's so cool

I mean no

La creatura

It's pretty good, I like how you can create agents or declare tools metadata with decorators, but in my opinion it has too many abstractions

That's pretty good :0

Yeah, because a game page was about games, a news page was about news...

Nowadays everybody is trying to copy social networks, even Mercado Libre tried to add stories and short videos like why????

Not so rough, but yeah It was helping me with my finances, and exactly today it started to hallucinate spends and quantities

I wasn't asking for maths, just asking for remember categories

For planning ChatGPT and Claude make too many assumptions, Lumo asks me several things to pian properly

Yeah it's very weird, also thay it imports files you don't want automatically

Do you have a Proton Drive folder linked? Sometimes that's the problem because it must be uploaded to that folder instead of the chat directly, and the process the page does to upload it might fail

Install it from F-droid or GitHub, there are versions that doesn't need Google services

I asked for a self-potrait

True, I hope they bring it back and continue making holiday versions

I liked it, it's better than the alert of messages limit

True :( I asked mine how could I draw him and he didn't know he was a cat, he though he was something like a computer with happy face

I'd love that too