Given does not use proper nesting in declared(params)

[JanStevens]

When using given block inside a nested requires block the validation works properly. But when trying to access these required params they are not nested in the requires block. Following spec (spec/grape/validations/params_scope_spec.rb) illustrate the problem

 it 'includes the nested parameter within #declared(params)' do
      subject.params do
        requires :bar, type: Hash do
          optional :a
          given :a do
            requires :b
          end
        end
      end
      subject.get('/nested') { declared(params).to_json }

      get '/nested', bar: { a: true, b: 'yes' }
      expect(JSON.parse(last_response.body)).to eq('bar' => { 'a' => true, 'b' => 'yes'})
    end

This fails with following message:

expected: {"bar"=>{"a"=>true, "b"=>"yes"}}
     got: {"b"=>nil, "bar"=>{"a"=>"true"}}

(compared using ==)

Diff:
@@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
-"bar" => {"a"=>true, "b"=>"yes"},
+"b" => nil,
+"bar" => {"a"=>"true"},

I tried different options (repeating the requires block in the given block) but nothing seems to work. I also cannot find the root of the problem but I guess it has to do with the following MR: #1047

[stjhimy]

Add optional :b:

  requires :bar, type: Hash do
    optional :a
    optional :b
    given :a do
      requires :b
    end
  end

subject.get('/nested') { declared(params).to_json }
get '/nested', bar: { a: true, b: 'yes' }
=>  {"b":null,"bar":{"a":"true","b":"yes"}}

The declared method returns only declared params?
"b":null outside bar is caused by including_missing: true here: /~https://github.com/ruby-grape/grape/blob/master/lib/grape/dsl/inside_route.rb#L28 not sure why.

[JanStevens]

@stjhimy Ha thanks that seems to solve the issue.

But the syntax is not really clear, why do I need the extra optional :b? Now I have defined :b two times.

I thought (and from the documentation) that I should only need the requires :b

[dblock]

I think that given :a requires :b in this case should automatically cause an optional :b. I wonder whether there's any case where we would not want that? If not this is a valid improvement / feature request.

[JanStevens]

I still think this is a bug and not really a feature request. Following example right from the specs

subject.params do
  optional :a
  given :a do
    requires :b
  end
end
subject.get('/test') { declared(params).to_json }

Why does this work out of the box without the optional :b where the nested example does require the optional: b to work? Clearly thats a bug to me and not a feature request.

I think that given :a requires :b implies that we ONLY require :b when a is provided, In this case I could use the given as a switch for my params. It's also possible that I only want to optional :b when a is provided. I don't want to allow optional :b as long as a is not provided!

If its implemented that given :a requires :b always implies an optional :b then the following should be invalid: given :a optional :b since its implied already.

Anyway quoting from the docs:

Suppose some of your parameters are only relevant if another parameter is given; Grape allows you to express this relationship through the given method in your parameters block, like so:

This implies for me the behaviour given :a requires :b without the implicit optional :b

[dblock]

Ok I am with you wrt bug. Would love a fix.