Search Results

Search found 5183 results on 208 pages for 'xsd validation'.

Page 11/208 | < Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >

  • Effective Data Validation

    - by John Conde
    What's an effective way to handle data validation, say, from a form submission? Originally I had a bunch of if statements that checked each value and collected invalid values in an array for later retrieval (and listing). // Store errors here $errors = array(); // Hypothetical check if a string is alphanumeric if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $fieldvalue)) { $errors[$fieldname] = 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'; } // etc... What I did next was create a class that handles various data validation scenarios and store the results in an internal array. After data validation was complete I would check to see if any errors occurred and handle accordingly: class Validation { private $errorList = array(); public function isAlphaNumeric($string, $field, $msg = '') { if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $string)) { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } } // more methods here public function creditCard($cardNumber, $field, $msg = '') { // Validate credit card number } // more methods here public function hasErrors() { return count($this->errorList); } } /* Client code */ $validate = new Validation(); $validate->isAlphaNumeric($fieldvalue1, $fieldname1, 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'); $validate->creditCard($fieldvalue2, $fieldname2, 'Please enter a valid credit card number'); if ($validate->hasErrors()) { // Handle as appropriate } Naturally it didn't take long before this class became bloated with the virtually unlimited types of data to be validated. What I'm doing now is using decorators to separate the different types of data into their own classes and call them only when needed leaving generic validations (i.e. isAlphaNumeric()) in the base class: class Validation { private $errorList = array(); public function isAlphaNumeric($string, $field, $msg = '') { if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $string)) { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } } // more generic methods here public function setError($field, $msg = '') { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } public function hasErrors() { return count($this->errorList); } } class ValidationCreditCard { protected $validate; public function __construct(Validation $validate) { $this->validate = $validate; } public function creditCard($cardNumber, $field, $msg = '') { // Do validation // ... // if there is an error $this->validate->setError($field, $msg); } // more methods here } /* Client code */ $validate = new Validation(); $validate->isAlphaNumeric($fieldvalue, $fieldname, 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'); $validateCC = new ValidationCreditCard($validate); $validateCC->creditCard($fieldvalue2, $fieldname2, 'Please enter a valid credit card number'); if ($validate->hasErrors()) { // Handle as appropriate } Am I on the right track? Or did I just complicate data validation more then I needed to?

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • DRY Validation with MVC2

    - by Matthew
    Hi All, I'm trying to figure out how I can define validation rules for my domain objects in one single location within my application but have run in to a snag... Some background: My location has several parts: - Database - DAL - Business Logic Layer - SOAP API Layer - MVC website The MVC website accesses the database via the SOAP API, just as third parties would. We are using server and and client side validation on the MVC website as well as in the SOAP API Layer. To avoid having to manually write client side validation we are implementing strongly typed views in conjunction with the Html.TextBoxFor and Html.ValidationMessageFor HTML helpers, as shown in Step 3 here. We also create custom models for each form where one form takes input for multiple domain objects. This is where the problem begins, the HTML helpers read from the model for the data annotation validation attributes. In most cases our forms deal with multiple domain objects and you can't specify more than one type in the <%@Page ... Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage" % page directive. So we are forced to create a custom model class, which would mean duplicating validation attributes from the domain objects on to the model class. I've spent quite some time looking for workarounds to this, such has referencing the same MetadataType from both the domain class and the custom MVC models, but that won't work for several reasons: You can only specify one MetadataType attribute per class, so its a problem if a model references multiple domain objects, each with their own metadata type. The data annotation validation code throws an exception if the model class doesn't contain a property that is specified in the referenced MetadataType which is a problem with the model only deals with a subset of the properties for a given domain object. I've looked at other solutions as well but to no avail. If anyone has any ideas on how to achieve a single source for validation logic that would work across MVC client and server side validation functionality and other locations (such as my SOAP API) I would love to hear it! Thanks in advance, Matthew

    Read the article

  • Create combined client side and server side validation in Symfony2

    - by ausi
    I think it would be very useful to create client side form validation up on the symfony2 Form and Validator components. The best way to do this would be to pass the validation constraints to the form view. With that information it would be possible to make a template that renders a form field to something like this: <div> <label for="form_email">E-Mail</label> <input id="form_email" type="text" name="form[email]" value="" data-validation-constraints='["NotBlank":{},"MinLength":{"limit":6}]' /> </div> The JavaScript part then would be to find all <input> elements that have the data-validation-constraints attribute and create the correct validation for them. To pass the validation constraints to the form view i thought the best way would be to create a form type extension. That's the point of my Question: Is this the correct way? And how is this possible? At the Moment my form type extension looks like this: use Symfony\Component\Form\FormInterface; use Symfony\Component\Form\FormView; use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilder; class FieldTypeExtension extends \Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractTypeExtension{ public function getExtendedType(){ return 'field'; } public function buildView(FormView $view, FormInterface $form) { // at this point i didn't find a way to get the // validation constraints out of the $form // the `getAllValidationConstraints` here is just an example $view->set('validation_constraints', $form->getAllValidationConstraints()); } } How can i get all validation constraints applied to one form field out of the FormInterface object?

    Read the article

  • Define "Validation in the Model"

    - by sunwukung
    There have been a couple of discussions regarding the location of user input validation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/659950/should-validation-be-done-in-form-objects-or-the-model http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134388/where-do-you-do-your-validation-model-controller-or-view These discussions were quite old, so I wanted to ask the question again to see if anyone had any fresh input. If not, I apologise in advance. If you come from the Validation in the Model camp - does Model mean OOP representation of data (i.e. Active Record/Data Mapper) as "Entity" (to borrow the DDD terminology) - in which case you would, I assume, want all Model classes to inherit common validation constraints. Or can these rules simply be part of a Service in the Model - i.e. a Validation service? For example, could you consider Zend_Form and it's validation classes part of the Model? The concept of a Domain Model does not appear to be limited to Entities, and so validation may not necessarily need to be confined to this Entities. It seems that you would require a lot of potentially superfluous handing of values and responses back and forth between forms and "Entities" - and in some instances you may not persist the data recieved from user input, or recieve it from user input at all.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC 2 validation using DTOs instead of domain entities

    - by Kevin Pang
    I'm struggling to mesh two best practices together: Using DataAnnotations + ModelBinding for validation in ASP.NET MVC 2 Using DTOs instead of domain entities when passing data via the ViewModel If I want to pass over DTOs instead of domain entities, then leveraging DataAnnotations + ModelBinding for validation would require me to specify validation attributes on my DTO classes. This results in a lot of duplicated work since multiple DTOs may hold overlapping fields with the same validation restrictions. This means that any time I change a validation rule in my domain, I have to go find all DTOs that correspond with that value and update their validation attributes.

    Read the article

  • WPF Validation with ContentPresenter

    - by Chris
    Hi, I have a WPF user control which needs to validate some fields. It is bound to a class implementing IDataErrorInfo. When I set the user control as the content of my ContentPresenter in another, already open, window, I can see validation occurring, and error messages being returned, however, I don't get any validation adorner - e.g. the default red outline. If I enter the field and leave it (triggering re-validation) the validation adorner appears. Also, if I show the user control in it's own window it shows the validation adorner immediately. (I'm using Caliburn IResults to do this underneath, e.g. Show.Dialog<VM>(); but I suspect this isn't related) Can anyone offer any suggestion why the validation adorners aren't appearing immediately. (I had guessed animation on my ContentPresenter ContentChanged, however, I have removed this and still experience the problem. thanks, Chris

    Read the article

  • map xml element to xsd complexType based on attribute

    - by Joshua Johnson
    Assume there exists an XML instance document that looks like this: <root> <object type="foo"> <!-- ... --> </object> <object type="bar"> <!-- ... --> </object> </root> My goal is to have a small (static) schema that verifies proper <element type="xxx" /> syntax for objects, and another schema (more prone to change) that verifies the contents of each object element against a complexType that matches the type attribute: <complexType name="foo"><!--should match object with type="foo"--></complexType> <complexType name="bar"><!--should match object with type="bar"--></complexType> What is the best way to accomplish this (or something similar)?

    Read the article

  • XSD any element

    - by ofer shwartz
    HI! I'm trying to create a list that some of the elements are defined and some are not, without priority to order. I tried it this way, with an any element: <?xml version="1.0"?> <xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"> <xs:complexType name="object" mixed="true"> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="value" minOccurs="1" maxOccurs="1"> <xs:simpleType> <xs:restriction base="xs:integer"> <xs:enumeration value="1"/> </xs:restriction> </xs:simpleType> </xs:element> <xs:any namespace="##any" processContents="skip"/> </xs:choice> </xs:complexType> <xs:element name="object" type="object"/> </xs:schema> And it tells me this error: :0:0: error: complex type 'object' violates the unique particle attribution rule in its components 'value' and '##any' Can someone help me out solve the problem? Ofer

    Read the article

  • Jaxb doesn't generate Interface for element of complex type

    - by user275886
    I have an xsd (for basecamp xml) that contains <xsd:complexType name="ProjectType"> <xsd:sequence> <xsd:element name="announcement" type="TypedNilableStringElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="created-on" type="TypedDateElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="id" type="TypedIntegerElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="last-changed-on" type="TypedDateTimeElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="name" type="xsd:string" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="show-announcement" type="TypedBooleanElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="show-writeboards" type="TypedBooleanElementType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="start-page" type="xsd:string" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="status" type="xsd:string" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> <xsd:element name="company" type="SimpleCompanyType" maxOccurs="1" minOccurs="1"> </xsd:element> </xsd:sequence> </xsd:complexType> and <xsd:element name="project" type="ProjectType"> </xsd:element> I'm looking at http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/tutorial/doc/bnbah.html and can't understand what I'm doing different from the sample schema in Table 17-13 where there is an element named purchaseOrder of type PurchaseOrderType. According to the tutorial, running xjc on the schema, one will get PurchaseOrder.java interface and PurchaseOrderType.java interface. When I run xjc on my schema I only get a ProjectType.java class, and when the xml actually consist of a single element, this won't parse, because there are no Project.java class/interface to match.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to validates_presence_of only one time? (to skip that validation once the user's been

    - by GoodGets
    So, I'd like for a user to see an error message if he submits a comment and the :name is blank (typical error message, don't need help with that). However, I'd then like to allow the user to skip that validation once he's been notified that "we like all comments to have a name." So, he submits the comment once, sees the notification, then can submit the form again unchanged if he really doesn't want to add a name, and the validates_presences_of :name is skipped. But, I'm not sure how to go about doing this. I thought about checking to see where the request is coming from, but after a create, errors are handed off to the "new" action, which is the same as actual "new" comments. I then thought about checking to see if flash[errors] were present, but that won't work because there are other validations a comment has to pass. Finally, I thought about trying a validates_presences_of :name, :unless = :notified but wasn't sure how to define notified. I honestly hate asking such an open ended question, but wasn't sure where to get started. So, is there a way to just check a certain validation once?

    Read the article

  • Data validation best practices: how can I better construct user feedback?

    - by Cory Larson
    Data validation, whether it be domain object, form, or any other type of input validation, could theoretically be part of any development effort, no matter its size or complexity. I sometimes find myself writing informational or error messages that might seem harsh or demanding to unsuspecting users, and frankly I feel like there must be a better way to describe the validation problem to the user. I know that this topic is subjective and argumentative. I've migrated this question from StackOverflow where I originally asked it with little response. Basically, I'm looking for good resources on data validation and user feedback that results from it at a theoretical level. Topics and questions I'm interested in are: Content Should I be describing what the user did correctly or incorrectly, or simply what was expected? How much detail can the user read before they get annoyed? (e.g. Is "Username cannot exceed 20 characters." enough, or should it be described more fully, such as "The username cannot be empty, and must be at least 6 characters but cannot exceed 30 characters."?) Grammar How do I decide between phrases like "must not," "may not," or "cannot"? Delivery This can depend on the project, but how should the information be delivered to the user? Should it be obtrusive (e.g. JavaScript alerts) or friendly? Should they be displayed prominently? Immediately (i.e. without confirmation steps, etc.)? Logging Do you bother logging validation errors? Internationalization Some cultures prefer or better understand directness over subtlety and vice-versa (e.g. "Don't do that!" vs. "Please check what you've done."). How do I cater to the majority of users? I may edit this list as I think more about the topic, but I'm genuinely interested in proper user feedback techniques. I'm looking for things like research results, poll results, etc. I've developed and refined my own techniques over the years that users seem to be okay with, but I work in an environment where the users prefer to adapt to what you give them over speaking up about things they don't like. I'm interested in hearing your experiences in addition to any resources to which you may be able to point me.

    Read the article

  • Data validation best practices: how can I better construct user feedback?

    - by Cory Larson
    Data validation, whether it be domain object, form, or any other type of input validation, could theoretically be part of any development effort, no matter its size or complexity. I sometimes find myself writing informational or error messages that might seem harsh or demanding to unsuspecting users, and frankly I feel like there must be a better way to describe the validation problem to the user. I know that this topic is subjective and argumentative. StackOverflow might not be the proper channel for diving into this subject, but like I've mentioned, we all run into this at some point or another. There are so many StackExchange sites now; if there is a better one, feel free to share! Basically, I'm looking for good resources on data validation and user feedback that results from it at a theoretical level. Topics and questions I'm interested in are: Content Should I be describing what the user did correctly or incorrectly, or simply what was expected? How much detail can the user read before they get annoyed? (e.g. Is "Username cannot exceed 20 characters." enough, or should it be described more fully, such as "The username cannot be empty, and must be at least 6 characters but cannot exceed 30 characters."?) Grammar How do I decide between phrases like "must not," "may not," or "cannot"? Delivery This can depend on the project, but how should the information be delivered to the user? Should it be obtrusive (e.g. JavaScript alerts) or friendly? Should they be displayed prominently? Immediately (i.e. without confirmation steps, etc.)? Logging Do you bother logging validation errors? Internationalization Some cultures prefer or better understand directness over subtlety and vice-versa (e.g. "Don't do that!" vs. "Please check what you've done."). How do I cater to the majority of users? I may edit this list as I think more about the topic, but I'm genuinely interest in proper user feedback techniques. I'm looking for things like research results, poll results, etc. I've developed and refined my own techniques over the years that users seem to be okay with, but I work in an environment where the users prefer to adapt to what you give them over speaking up about things they don't like. I'm interested in hearing your experiences in addition to any resources to which you may be able to point me.

    Read the article

  • Domain Validation in a CQRS architecture

    - by Jupaol
    Basically I want to know if there is a better way to validate my domain entities. This is how I am planning to do it but I would like your opinion The first approach I considered was: class Customer : EntityBase<Customer> { public void ChangeEmail(string email) { if(string.IsNullOrWhitespace(email)) throw new DomainException(“...”); if(!email.IsEmail()) throw new DomainException(); if(email.Contains(“@mailinator.com”)) throw new DomainException(); } } I actually do not like this validation because even when I am encapsulating the validation logic in the correct entity, this is violating the Open/Close principle (Open for extension but Close for modification) and I have found that violating this principle, code maintenance becomes a real pain when the application grows up in complexity. Why? Because domain rules change more often than we would like to admit, and if the rules are hidden and embedded in an entity like this, they are hard to test, hard to read, hard to maintain but the real reason why I do not like this approach is: if the validation rules change, I have to come and edit my domain entity. This has been a really simple example but in RL the validation could be more complex So following the philosophy of Udi Dahan, making roles explicit, and the recommendation from Eric Evans in the blue book, the next try was to implement the specification pattern, something like this class EmailDomainIsAllowedSpecification : IDomainSpecification<Customer> { private INotAllowedEmailDomainsResolver invalidEmailDomainsResolver; public bool IsSatisfiedBy(Customer customer) { return !this.invalidEmailDomainsResolver.GetInvalidEmailDomains().Contains(customer.Email); } } But then I realize that in order to follow this approach I had to mutate my entities first in order to pass the value being valdiated, in this case the email, but mutating them would cause my domain events being fired which I wouldn’t like to happen until the new email is valid So after considering these approaches, I came out with this one, since I am going to implement a CQRS architecture: class EmailDomainIsAllowedValidator : IDomainInvariantValidator<Customer, ChangeEmailCommand> { public void IsValid(Customer entity, ChangeEmailCommand command) { if(!command.Email.HasValidDomain()) throw new DomainException(“...”); } } Well that’s the main idea, the entity is passed to the validator in case we need some value from the entity to perform the validation, the command contains the data coming from the user and since the validators are considered injectable objects they could have external dependencies injected if the validation requires it. Now the dilemma, I am happy with a design like this because my validation is encapsulated in individual objects which brings many advantages: easy unit test, easy to maintain, domain invariants are explicitly expressed using the Ubiquitous Language, easy to extend, validation logic is centralized and validators can be used together to enforce complex domain rules. And even when I know I am placing the validation of my entities outside of them (You could argue a code smell - Anemic Domain) but I think the trade-off is acceptable But there is one thing that I have not figured out how to implement it in a clean way. How should I use this components... Since they will be injected, they won’t fit naturally inside my domain entities, so basically I see two options: Pass the validators to each method of my entity Validate my objects externally (from the command handler) I am not happy with the option 1 so I would explain how I would do it with the option 2 class ChangeEmailCommandHandler : ICommandHandler<ChangeEmailCommand> { public void Execute(ChangeEmailCommand command) { private IEnumerable<IDomainInvariantValidator> validators; // here I would get the validators required for this command injected, and in here I would validate them, something like this using (var t = this.unitOfWork.BeginTransaction()) { var customer = this.unitOfWork.Get<Customer>(command.CustomerId); this.validators.ForEach(x =. x.IsValid(customer, command)); // here I know the command is valid // the call to ChangeEmail will fire domain events as needed customer.ChangeEmail(command.Email); t.Commit(); } } } Well this is it. Can you give me your thoughts about this or share your experiences with Domain entities validation EDIT I think it is not clear from my question, but the real problem is: Hiding the domain rules has serious implications in the future maintainability of the application, and also domain rules change often during the life-cycle of the app. Hence implementing them with this in mind would let us extend them easily. Now imagine in the future a rules engine is implemented, if the rules are encapsulated outside of the domain entities, this change would be easier to implement

    Read the article

  • How to ignore the validation of Unknown tags ?

    - by infant programmer
    One more challenge to the XSD capability,I have been sending XML files by my clients, which will be having 0 or more undefined or [call] unexpected tags (May appear in hierarchy). Well they are redundant tags for me .. so I have got to ignore their presence, but along with them there are some set of tags which are required to be validated. This is a sample XML: <root> <undefined_1>one</undefined_1> <undefined_2>two</undefined_2> <node>to_be_validated</node> <undefined_3>two</undefined_3> <undefined_4>two</undefined_4> </root> And the XSD I tried with: <xs:element name="root" type="root"></xs:element> <xs:complexType name="root"> <xs:sequence> <xs:any maxOccurs="2" minOccurs="0"/> <xs:element name="node" type="xs:string"/> <xs:any maxOccurs="2" minOccurs="0"/> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType XSD doesn't allow this, due to certain reasons. The above mentioned example is just a sample. The practical XML comes with the complex hierarchy of XML tags .. Kindly let me know if you can get a hack of it. By the way, The alternative solution is to insert XSL-transformation, before validation process. Well, I am avoiding it because I need to change the .Net code which triggers validation process, which is supported at the least by my company.

    Read the article

  • asp.net mvc client side validation; manually calling validation via javascript for ajax posts

    - by Jopache
    Under the built in client side validation (Microsoft mvc validation in mvc 2) using data annotations, when you try to submit a form and the fields are invalid, you will get the red validation summary next to the fields and the form will not post. However, I am using jquery form plugin to intercept the submit action on that form and doing the post via ajax. This is causing it to ignore validation; the red text shows up; but the form posts anyways. Is there an easy way to manually call the validation via javascript when I'm submitting the form? I am still kind of a javascript n00b. I tried googling it with no results and looking through the js source code makes my head hurt trying to figure it out. Or would you all recommend that I look in to some other validation framework? I liked the idea of jquery validate; but would like to define my validation requirements only in my viewmodel. Any experiences with xval or anything of the sort?

    Read the article

  • xml regular expression/regex OR operator

    - by Naz Haque
    Hi am trying to use a regeX to read through my document to identify currency types whether they're $,£ or a €. The regex I've created doesn't seem to work, somebody please advise me what it should be. I'd really appreciate the help: The regEX I've created ("\$|£|€]")is in a simpleType within my XSD file used for validating a document. The code is show after the colon, please note to display on stackoverflow I've had to remove the open/close tags (<): xs:simpleType name="currencyType" xs:restriction base="utf8-string" xs:length value="1" / xs:pattern value="[\$|£|€]"/ /xs:restriction /xs:simpleType

    Read the article

  • Validate a subset of or only certain elements of an XML document?

    - by Gaurav Dadhania
    I have this XML file (some of them are HUGE - thousands of elements) and I'm trying to validate certain elements of this XML file using an XSD schema. For eg. dates, etc. Now, the problem is that XSD won't let me validate just certain sections of the document. It wants definitions for EVERYTHING - and that would be quite painful. What I would like to know is that is there a way to XSD work with only certain elements of the document? I've tried any and anyAttribute to no avail. If not, how would you do this? Is there a library/script that produces a schema corresponding to an XML document which I can then modify according to my needs? Thanks,

    Read the article

  • Is it practical to have perfect validation score on HTML?

    - by Truth
    I was in a heated discussion the other day, about whether or not it's practical to have a perfect validation score on any HTML document. By practical I mean: Does not take a ridiculous amount of time compared to it's almost-perfect counterpart. Can be made to look good on older browsers and to be usable on very old browsers. Justifies the effort it may take to do so (does it come with some kind of reward on SEO/Usability/Accessibility that cannot be achieved in a simpler way with almost-perfect validation) So basically, is perfect validation score practical on any HTML document?

    Read the article

  • Spring Batch validation

    - by sergionni
    Hello. Does Spring Batch framework provide its specific validation mechanism? I mean, how it's possible to specify validation bean? My validation is result of @NamedQuery - if query returned result, the validation is OK, else - false.

    Read the article

  • jquery validation plugin - different treatment for display errors vs. clearing errors

    - by RyOnLife
    I am using the popular jQuery Validation Plugin. It's very flexible with regards to when validations are run (onsubmit, onfocusout, onkeyup, etc.). When validations do run, as appropriate, errors are both displayed and cleared. Without hacking the plugin core, I'd like a way to split the behavior so: Errors are only displayed onsubmit But if the user subsequently enters a valid response, errors are cleared onsubmit, onfocusout, etc. Just trying to create a better user experience: Only yell at them when they submit, yet still get the errors out of their face as soon as possible. When I ran through the options, I didn't see the callbacks necessary to accomplish this. I'd like to make it work without having to hack the plugin core. Anyone have some insights? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Spring validation has error in XML document from ServletContext resource

    - by user1441404
    I applied spring validation in my registration page .but the follwing error are shown in my server log of my app engine server. javax.servlet.UnavailableException: org.springframework.beans.factory.xml.XmlBeanDefinitionStoreException: Line 22 in XML document from ServletContext resource [/WEB-INF/spring/appServlet/servlet-context.xml] is invalid; nested exception is org.xml.sax.SAXParseException; lineNumber: 22; columnNumber: 30; cvc-complex-type.2.4.c: The matching wildcard is strict, but no declaration can be found for element 'property'. My code is given below : <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <beans:beans xmlns="http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:beans="http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans" xmlns:context="http://www.springframework.org/schema/context" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc http://www.springframework.org/schema/mvc/spring-mvc-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans http://www.springframework.org/schema/beans/spring-beans-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/context http://www.springframework.org/schema/context/spring-context-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/aop http://www.springframework.org/schema/aop/spring-aop-3.0.xsd http://www.springframework.org/schema/jee http://www.springframework.org/schema/jee/spring-jee-3.0.xsd > <beans:bean name="/register" class="com.my.registration.NewUserRegistration"> <property name="validator"> <bean class="com.my.validation.UserValidator" /> </property> <beans:property name="formView" value="newuser"></beans:property> <beans:property name="successView" value="home"></beans:property> </beans:bean> <beans:bean class="org.springframework.web.servlet.view.InternalResourceViewResolver"> <beans:property name="prefix" value="/WEB-INF/views/" /> <beans:property name="suffix" value=".jsp" /> </beans:bean> </beans:beans>

    Read the article

  • How to provide warnings during validation in ASP.NET MVC?

    - by Alex
    Sometimes user input is not strictly invalid but can be considered problematic. For example: A user enters a long sentence in a single-line Name field. He probably should have used the Description field instead. A user enters a Name that is very similar to that of an existing entity. Perhaps he's inputting the same entity but didn't realize it already exists, or some concurrent user has just entered it. Some of these can easily be checked client-side, some require server-side checks. What's the best way, perhaps something similar to DataAnnotations validation, to provide warnings to the user in such cases? The key here is that the user has to be able to override the warning and still submit the form (or re-submit the form, depending on the implementation). The most viable solution that comes to mind is to create some attribute, similar to a CustomValidationAttribute, that may make an AJAX call and would display some warning text but doesn't affect the ModelState. The intended usage is this: [WarningOnFieldLength(MaxLength = 150)] [WarningOnPossibleDuplicate()] public string Name { get; set; } In the view: @Html.EditorFor(model => model.Name) @Html.WarningMessageFor(model => model.Name) @Html.ValidationMessageFor(model => model.Name) So, any ideas?

    Read the article

  • MVC2 jQuery Validation & Custom Business Objects

    - by durilai
    I have an application that was built with MVC1 and am in the process of updating to MVC2. I have a custom DLL and BLL, of which the model objects are custom business objects that reside in a separate class library. I was using this validation library in MVC1, which worked great. It worked great, but I want to eliminate the extra plugins and use what is available. Rather than use the Enterprise Library validation attributes I have converted to using DataAnnotations and want to use jQuery validation as the client side validation. My questions are: 1) Is the MicrosoftMvcJQueryValidation JS file still required, where do I download. 2) How to you automate the validation to views that do not have models, IE Membership sign in page? 3) How to you add model errors in a custom business layer. Thanks for any help or guidance.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18  | Next Page >