Rails - Aug 2005 - validates_numericality_of: minimum, maximum, ranges

Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the value 
range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a thing?

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                           The more it stays the same,
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org                       
The less it changes!
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/      --Spinal Tap, The Majesty of Rock

Michael Schuerig wrote:
> Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the value 
> range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a thing?
> 
> Michael
> 
Haven''t tried this but from the docs[1] couldn''t you use the
if parameter?

"* if - Specifies a method, proc or string to call to determine if the 
validation should occur (e.g. :if => :allow_validation, or :if => 
Proc.new { |user| user.signup_step > 2 }). The method, proc or string 
should return or evaluate to a true or false value."

[1] 
http://api.rubyonrails.com/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000649

On Wednesday 24 August 2005 10:43, Chris Roos wrote:
> Michael Schuerig wrote:
> > Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the
> > value range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a
> > thing?
> >
> > Michael
>
> Haven''t tried this but from the docs[1] couldn''t you use
the if
> parameter?
I think I don''t understand what you mean. How does :if help? I want 
validation to run always for the attribute.

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                 Nothing is as brilliantly adaptive
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org       as selective
stupidity.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/    --A.O. Rorty, The Deceptive Self

Michael Schuerig wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 10:43, Chris Roos wrote:
> 
>>Michael Schuerig wrote:
>>
>>>Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the
>>>value range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a
>>>thing?
>>>
>>>Michael
>>
>>Haven''t tried this but from the docs[1] couldn''t you
use the if
>>parameter?
> 
> 
> I think I don''t understand what you mean. How does :if help? I
want
> validation to run always for the attribute.
> 
> Michael
> 
My mistake, sorry.  On quick inspection, I was thinking that :if allowed 
for an additional constraint to be checked (I was thinking something 
like num > min && num < max), where it actually checks to see if
the
validation should be checked at all.  Oops.

Chris

Michael Schuerig wrote:
> Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the value 
> range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a thing?
> 
> Michael
> 
Just had another thought as this is something I''ve done in the past. 
Create your own protected validate method in your model and add your 
custom error in there.  In my case I wanted to ensure that a job_number 
was greater than zero.

protected
def validate
   errors.add(:job_number, "must be greater than 0") if
job_number.nil?
|| job_number <= 0
end

I can see that this isn''t great if you are wanting this min/max clause 
to be applicable on lots of models but it was fine in my case.

Chris

Try:

validates_numericality_of :foo
validates_inclusion_of :foo, :in => 1..100

I wouldn''t like the logic for the second one in the first, personally.

On Aug 24, 2005, at 10:20 AM, Michael Schuerig wrote:
>
> Surprisingly, validates_numericality_of has no option to check the  
> value
> range of attributes. Has anyone by chance written such a thing?
>
> Michael
>
> -- 
> Michael Schuerig                           The more it stays the same,
> mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org                     
The less it changes!
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/      --Spinal Tap, The Majesty of Rock
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

On Wednesday 24 August 2005 21:51, Patrick McCafferty
wrote:
> Try:
>
> validates_numericality_of :foo
> validates_inclusion_of :foo, :in => 1..100
>
> I wouldn''t like the logic for the second one in the first,
> personally.
That only works for integers.

Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                  Airtight arguments have
mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org        vacuous
conclusions.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/   --A.O. Rorty, Explaining Emotions

it would be fairly trivial to add support for min/max parameters.

On 8/24/05, Michael Schuerig
<michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 21:51, Patrick McCafferty wrote:
> > Try:
> >
> > validates_numericality_of :foo
> > validates_inclusion_of :foo, :in => 1..100
> >
> > I wouldn''t like the logic for the second one in the first,
> > personally.
> 
> That only works for integers.
> 
> Michael
> 
> --
> Michael Schuerig                  Airtight arguments have
> mailto:michael-q5aiKMLteq4b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org        vacuous
conclusions.
> http://www.schuerig.de/michael/   --A.O. Rorty, Explaining Emotions
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

Instead of validates_numericality_of, how about validates_as_number?

> Instead of validates_numericality_of, how about validates_as_number?
See http://dev.rubyonrails.com/ticket/2031 -- and think long and hard
about whether it feels worth repeating the high emotion here ;)
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework

On 24-aug-2005, at 22:45, Michael Schuerig wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 August 2005 21:51, Patrick McCafferty wrote:
>
>> Try:
>>
>> validates_numericality_of :foo
>> validates_inclusion_of :foo, :in => 1..100
>>
>> I wouldn''t like the logic for the second one in the first,
>> personally.
>>
>
> That only works for integers.
In both cases (if it doesn''t validate floats AND if it doesn''t
typecast strings) it deserves a ticket I believe (and a one-liner fix)


-- 
Julian "Julik" Tarkhanov

Wow... that thread was hilarious, in an octopodian kind of way

On Aug 25, 2005, at 7:30 AM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
>> Instead of validates_numericality_of, how about validates_as_number?
>>
>
> See http://dev.rubyonrails.com/ticket/2031 -- and think long and hard
> about whether it feels worth repeating the high emotion here ;)
> -- 
> David Heinemeier Hansson
> http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
> http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
> http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
> http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
>
Matt Pelletier
pelletierm-A1PILTyJ15gXhy9q4Lf3Ug@public.gmane.org

Okay :-)

how about "validates_cardinality_of"

Just as an alternative. I quite like numericality_of... and I''m not  
big on changing frameworks once they''re in use. However adding  
additional ways to do things always seems a plus to me.

Respect!
Julian.

On 25/08/2005, at 9:30 PM, David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
>> Instead of validates_numericality_of, how about validates_as_number?
>>
>
> See http://dev.rubyonrails.com/ticket/2031 -- and think long and hard
> about whether it feels worth repeating the high emotion here ;)
> -- 
> David Heinemeier Hansson


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

> how about "validates_cardinality_of"
No, because that sounds like "check how many there are of these", not 
"check that this is a number".
> However adding additional 
> ways to do things always seems a plus to me.
That''s exactly the sort of thinking that''ll get you languages
like Perl.

*shudder*

- M

You''re right! Sorry about that.

Julian.

On 28/08/2005, at 8:16 PM, Matt Powell wrote:
>> how about "validates_cardinality_of"
>>
>
> No, because that sounds like "check how many there are of these",
> not "check that this is a number".
>
>
>> However adding additional ways to do things always seems a plus to  
>> me.
>>
>
> That''s exactly the sort of thinking that''ll get you
languages like
> Perl.
>
> *shudder*
>
> - M
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>