So, here''s a case something didn''t work as expected, and
I''m wondering
if a feature tweak is worth considering.
If I use :allow_nil => TRUE, validation rules still complain if a form
field is submitted empty (w/o using a presence_of rule).
So...
validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name,
:allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg
Will complain if the field is submitted as empty. Now, empty doesn''t
conform to the regex I am using, but I was expecting that :allow_nil
will cause the validation to be ignored when the value is empty.
After thinking about it, I can see that params creates emptry strings
which are not interpreted as nil for saving. That makes sense, and
therefore I can see why Rails still validated my format rule.
Ultimately what I was trying to do was have certain messages override
the need for others.
If I have this:
validates_presence_of :first_name
validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name,
:allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg
And the field is submitted as empty, then the only error message I need
to see is the one that says the field cannot be empty. I do not need to
see the format_of error message, or another any subsequent rule failure
that might apply.
It was suggested that using an :if is the typical strategy for
accomplishing that:
:if => Proc.new { |model_name| model_name.first_name.length > 0 }
That seems rather bulky (especially when repetitive), and I wonder if an
:allow_empty => TRUE couldn''t be used to provide the behavior I was
expecting -- rules are ignored for *empty* fields, not just Nil ones.
Or perhaps it is better named, :ignore_empty => TRUE
Maybe this is too small a use case, but it sure reduces the :if bulk.
Just a thought...
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
:allow_blank is in 2.0 AFAIK, so that should do what you want On 11/28/07, Greg Willits <ruby-forum-incoming@andreas-s.net> wrote:> > So, here''s a case something didn''t work as expected, and I''m wondering > if a feature tweak is worth considering. > > If I use :allow_nil => TRUE, validation rules still complain if a form > field is submitted empty (w/o using a presence_of rule). > > So... > > validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name, > :allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg > > Will complain if the field is submitted as empty. Now, empty doesn''t > conform to the regex I am using, but I was expecting that :allow_nil > will cause the validation to be ignored when the value is empty. > > After thinking about it, I can see that params creates emptry strings > which are not interpreted as nil for saving. That makes sense, and > therefore I can see why Rails still validated my format rule. > > Ultimately what I was trying to do was have certain messages override > the need for others. > > If I have this: > > validates_presence_of :first_name > > validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name, > :allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg > > And the field is submitted as empty, then the only error message I need > to see is the one that says the field cannot be empty. I do not need to > see the format_of error message, or another any subsequent rule failure > that might apply. > > It was suggested that using an :if is the typical strategy for > accomplishing that: > > :if => Proc.new { |model_name| model_name.first_name.length > 0 } > > That seems rather bulky (especially when repetitive), and I wonder if an > :allow_empty => TRUE couldn''t be used to provide the behavior I was > expecting -- rules are ignored for *empty* fields, not just Nil ones. > > Or perhaps it is better named, :ignore_empty => TRUE > > Maybe this is too small a use case, but it sure reduces the :if bulk. > Just a thought... > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Andrew Kaspick wrote:> :allow_blank is in 2.0 AFAIK, so that should do what you wantAh. Yep. a search for allow_blank reveals http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7383 Didn''t catch that with my other searches. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
If I use :allow_blank => false I expect that no blanks are allowed,
however, they are allowed.
def test_validates_length_of_with_no_allow_blank
Topic.validates_length_of( :title, :maximum => 5, :allow_blank=>false
)
assert !Topic.create("title" => "abcdefg").valid?
assert !Topic.create("title" => "").valid?
assert !Topic.create("title" => nil).valid?
assert Topic.create("title" => "abcde").valid?
end
This test fails on the 2nd assert.
The default validation options include :allow_nil=>false and
:allow_blank=>false. I suggest those are removed, and only when those
options are explicitely passed into the options hash of one of the
validate methods would you check for allow_nil and/or allow_blank.
Futhermore, now that we have the :allow_blank option, does anyone
understand why validate_presence_of can''t use validates_each? And why
does that method need to be able to deal with "nonexistent attributes"
and all the other validate methods not ??
Cheers
Lawrence
> :allow_blank is in 2.0 AFAIK, so that should do what you want
>
> On 11/28/07, Greg Willits <ruby-forum-incoming@andreas-s.net> wrote:
>
>> So, here''s a case something didn''t work as expected,
and I''m wondering
>> if a feature tweak is worth considering.
>>
>> If I use :allow_nil => TRUE, validation rules still complain if a
form
>> field is submitted empty (w/o using a presence_of rule).
>>
>> So...
>>
>> validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name,
>> :allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg
>>
>> Will complain if the field is submitted as empty. Now, empty
doesn''t
>> conform to the regex I am using, but I was expecting that :allow_nil
>> will cause the validation to be ignored when the value is empty.
>>
>> After thinking about it, I can see that params creates emptry strings
>> which are not interpreted as nil for saving. That makes sense, and
>> therefore I can see why Rails still validated my format rule.
>>
>> Ultimately what I was trying to do was have certain messages override
>> the need for others.
>>
>> If I have this:
>>
>> validates_presence_of :first_name
>>
>> validates_format_of :first_name, :with => Is_human_name,
>> :allow_nil => TRUE, :message => Is_not_human_name_msg
>>
>> And the field is submitted as empty, then the only error message I need
>> to see is the one that says the field cannot be empty. I do not need to
>> see the format_of error message, or another any subsequent rule failure
>> that might apply.
>>
>> It was suggested that using an :if is the typical strategy for
>> accomplishing that:
>>
>> :if => Proc.new { |model_name| model_name.first_name.length >
0 }
>>
>> That seems rather bulky (especially when repetitive), and I wonder if
an
>> :allow_empty => TRUE couldn''t be used to provide the
behavior I was
>> expecting -- rules are ignored for *empty* fields, not just Nil ones.
>>
>> Or perhaps it is better named, :ignore_empty => TRUE
>>
>> Maybe this is too small a use case, but it sure reduces the :if bulk.
>> Just a thought...
>> --
>> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
>>
>>
>
> >
>
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---