Required Fields should not be required in Draft State

When a Draft/Publish System is configured, it should be possible to save an entry in draft stage without all required fields in all required languages.

When editors are creating entries for a mulit-language page, they have to fill out all required fields for all required languages right now. This is really pain, since one person usually does not do all translations too. Right now, to make things acceptable for the editor, i am not able to use required validations. So it kind of gets useless for multi-language sites.

As long as i do not publish the item, i usually do not care if all required fields are there, right?
The editor experience should be the main focus here.

I found a support questions already about this topic:

hi @juergen you could set your model to do not require all locales by default. In this way, validations run against present locales only

hi @fabrizio, thanks for pointing out that workaround. We are aware of this, though it is not a solution.

Since in the event of publishing, all locals are required.

Currently we have to decide between a) having correct validation or b) having good editorial experience. Imo this should not be exclusive.

Hey @juergen thank you for this feature request.

For us it’s important to enforce all the validations also in the draft state as this ensures that the data that leaves our API follow a format that your frontend can trust. In such a way you can write simpler code that can reliably assume that the data is going to be there and follow your directives enforced via validations.

If some fields can be optional, then you should remove the requirement and decide with your editors when to require a field and when it can be optional, as the code should accomodate for that.

I hope you’ll buy into our vision around validations. This is something quite unique to DatoCMS compared to the other CMSs, so you might need to adapt, but we are confident that it’s something that can make the development faster and the frontend code more reliable.

I don’t think this is a very nuanced approach. An option to make fields required for both “save” and “publish” or just for “publish” could be useful for a lot of scenarios, both for developers and for content-editors, and it doesn’t create a risk of unpredictability because the developer would choose the validation type and therefore know which fields may or may not be present. The key would be to allow this option on a field-by-field basis

Fair enough, I see your point. We can keep this feature request open for sure and see if it gets some more traction we can consider it.

It’s a very significant change for us so we really need some validation around the need for it, hope you understand.