# What is the "NodeRed" way to approach this? \[Argument Validation\]

**URL:** <https://discourse.nodered.org/t/what-is-the-nodered-way-to-approach-this-argument-validation/84845>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [23 January 2024 19:29 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/what-is-the-nodered-way-to-approach-this-argument-validation/84845 "2024-01-23T19:29:26Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 8

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gregorius](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex026/user_avatar/discourse.nodered.org/gregorius/32/73816_2.png) [@gregorius](https://discourse.nodered.org/u/gregorius)\
**Post date:** [27 January 2024 14:18 UTC](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/what-is-the-nodered-way-to-approach-this-argument-validation/84845/8 "2024-01-27T14:18:05Z")

</div>

I had the same feeling about not knowing what properties a `msg` object requires so I put together the [validation node](https://flows.nodered.org/node/@gregoriusrippenstein/node-red-contrib-validation-and-documentation) which uses a JSON schema to validate `msg` objects. The [discussion](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/requiring-a-msg-structure-enforcing-the-presence-of-fields-and-attributes/81432) behind the node.

I use that node in a [couple](https://cdn.flowhub.org/?t=0&fhid=390ee0021ded4910#flow/390ee0021ded4910) of places but it's still not "easy to use, out of the box" stuff.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.nodered.org/t/what-is-the-nodered-way-to-approach-this-argument-validation/84845)._