{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/368","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/368/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/368/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/368/events","html_url":"https://github.com/aurelia/validation/issues/368","id":184926967,"number":368,"title":"feat(validation) `ValidationRules.customRule` message parameter take a function, eliminate third parameter","user":{"login":"dkent600","id":1821666,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1821666?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600","html_url":"https://github.com/dkent600","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dkent600/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"id":185762744,"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/labels/question","name":"question","color":"cc317c","default":true}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":10,"created_at":"2016-10-24T19:05:01Z","updated_at":"2016-11-30T04:03:58Z","closed_at":null,"body":"I would like to propose that the `ValidationRules.customRule` message parameter take a function, just like the rule evaluation does (or function|string).  Then eliminate the awkward final parameter and the config object.  \n\nInstead of this:\n\n```\nValidationRules.customRule(\n  'integerRange',\n  (value, obj, min, max) => ... ,\n  `\\${$displayName} must be an integer between \\${$config.min} and \\${$config.max}.`,\n  (min, max) => ({ min, max }) \n);\n```\n\nRather this:\n\n```\nValidationRules.customRule(\n  'integerRange',\n  (value, obj, min, max) => ... ,\n  `(value, obj, min, max) => { `\\${$displayName} must be an integer between \\${min} and \\${max}.`,\n);\n```\n"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/comments/263777690","html_url":"https://github.com/aurelia/validation/issues/368#issuecomment-263777690","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/aurelia/validation/issues/368","id":263777690,"user":{"login":"jdanyow","id":1306747,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1306747?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow","html_url":"https://github.com/jdanyow","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jdanyow/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2016-11-30T04:03:58Z","updated_at":"2016-11-30T04:03:58Z","body":"I see what you mean now- I don't really like the mixed escaping of the interpolation expressions in the message that this kind of change would introduce."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jdanyow"}}