Search Results

Search found 18876 results on 756 pages for 'request validation'.

Page 6/756 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

• For an ORM supporting data validation, should constraints be enforced in the database as well?

  - by Ramnique Singh

  I have always applied constraints at the database level in addition to my (ActiveRecord) models. But I've been wondering if this is really required? A little background I recently had to unit test a basic automated timestamp generation method for a model. Normally, the test would create an instance of the model and save it without validation. But there are other required fields that aren't nullable at the in the table definition, meaning I cant save the instance even if I skip the ActiveRecord validation. So I'm thinking if I should remove such constraints from the db itself, and let the ORM handle them? Possible advantages if I skip constraints in db, imo - Can modify a validation rule in the model, without having to migrate the database. Can skip validation in testing. Possible disadvantage? If its possible that ORM validation fails or is bypassed, howsoever, the database does not check for constraints. What do you think? EDIT In this case, I'm using the Yii Framework, which generates the model from the database, hence database rules are generated also (though I could always write them post-generation myself too).

  Read the article

• Play Framework custom validation errors with multiple String parameters

  - by Mark

  I'm trying to set a custom validation error with multiple params in Play!, but it seems like my validation parameters are not rendered correctly. I have defined in messages: validation.customerror=This is first param "%s", and this is the second "%s" The in my code I execute: validation.addError("","validation.customerror", "FIRST", "SECOND"); And I get: This is first param "", and this is the second "FIRST" Thoughts?

  Read the article

• How to perform duplicate key validation using entlib (or DataAnnotations), MVC, and Repository pattern

  - by olivehour

  I have a set of ASP.NET 4 projects that culminate in an MVC (3 RC2) app. The solution uses Unity and EntLib Validation for cross-cutting dependency injection and validation. Both are working great for injecting repository and service layer implementations. However, I can't figure out how to do duplicate key validation. For example, when a user registers, we want to make sure they don't pick a UserID that someone else is already using. For this type of validation, the validating object must have a repository reference... or some other way to get an IQueryable / IEnumerable reference to check against other rows already in the DB. What I have is a UserMetadata class that has all of the property setters and getters for a user, along with all of the appropriate DataAnnotations and EntLib Validation attributes. There is also a UserEntity class implemented using EF4 POCO Entity Generator templates. The UserEntity depends on UserMetadata, because it has a MetadataTypeAttribute. I also have a UserViewModel class that has the same exact MetadataType attribute. This way, I can apply the same validation rules, via attributes, to both the entity and viewmodel. There are no concrete references to the Repository classes whatsoever. All repositories are injected using Unity. There is also a service layer that gets dependency injection. In the MVC project, service layer implementation classes are injected into the Controller classes (the controller classes only contain service layer interface references). Unity then injects the Repository implementations into the service layer classes (service classes also only contain interface references). I've experimented with the DataAnnotations CustomValidationAttribute in the metadata class. The problem with this is the validation method must be static, and the method cannot instantiate a repository implementation directly. My repository interface is IRepository, and I have only one single repository implementation class defined as EntityRepository for all domain objects. To instantiate a repository explicitly I would need to say new EntityRepository(), which would result in a circular dependency graph: UserMetadata [depends on] DuplicateUserIDValidator [depends on] UserEntity [depends on] UserMetadata. I've also tried creating a custom EntLib Validator along with a custom validation attribute. Here I don't have the same problem with a static method. I think I could get this to work if I could just figure out how to make Unity inject my EntityRepository into the validator class... which I can't. Right now, all of the validation code is in my Metadata class library, since that's where the custom validation attribute would go. Any ideas on how to perform validations that need to check against the current repository state? Can Unity be used to inject a dependency into a lower-layer class library?

  Read the article

• 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

• OPTIONS request vs GET in Ajax

  - by user41172

  I have a PHP/javascript app that queries and returns info using an ajax request. On every server I've used so far, this works as expected, passing an Ajax GET request to the server and returning json data. On a new install, the query fails and returns nothing-- I inspected the request and it turns out that rather than passing the query as a GET, the server is passing it as an OPTIONS request. Is there any reason for this? I have no idea why this might happen. THanks!

  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

• 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

• Exchange 2010: Find Move Request Log after move request completes

  - by gravyface

  EDIT: significantly changed my question here to streamline it a bit. I've gone ahead and used 100 as my corrupted item count and ran it from the Exchange Shell. So the trail of tears continues with my SBS 2003 to 2011 migration: all the mailboxes have moved mailbox store from OLDSERVER to NEWSERVER, with the Local Move Requests completing successfully, except for one. What I'd like to do now is review the previous move request log files: when they were in progress, I could right-click Properties Log View Log File, but now that they're completed, that's not available. Nor can I use: Get-MoveRequestStatistics <user> -includereport | fl MoveReport ...as the move request has now completed and it errors out with "couldn't find a move request that corresponds...". Basically what I'd like to do is present the list of baditems to the user so that they're aware of what items didn't come across and if anything important was lost, be able to check their current OST, an archive.pst, etc. to recover it if possible. If this all needs to be wrapped up in a batch Exchange power shell command to pipe the output to log files on disk somewhere, I'm all ears, and would appreciate it for the next migration we do.

  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

• 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

• Know Your Service Request Status

  - by Get Proactive Customer Adoption Team

  Untitled Document To monitor a Service Request or not to monitor a Service Request... That should never be the question Monitoring the Service Requests you create is an essential part of the process to resolve your issue when you work with a Support Engineer. If you monitor your Service Request, you know at all times where it is in the process, or to be more specific, you know at all times what action the Support Engineer has taken on your request and what the next step is. When you think about it, it is rather simple... Oracle Support is working the issue, Oracle Development is working the issue, or you are. When you check on the status, you may find that the Support Engineer has a question for you or the engineer is waiting for more information to resolve the issue. If you monitor the Service Request, and respond quickly, the process keeps moving, and you’ll get your answer more quickly. Monitoring a Service Request is easy. All you need to do is check the status codes that the Support Engineer or the system assigns to your Service Request. These status codes are not static. You will see that during the life of your Service request, it will go through a variety of status codes. The best advice I can offer you when you monitor your Service Request is to watch the codes. If the status is not changing, or if you are not getting responses back within the agreed timeframes, you should review the action plan the Support Engineer has outlined or talk about a new action plan. Here are the most common status codes: Work in Progress indicates that your Support Engineer is researching and working the issue. Development Working means that you have a code related issue and Oracle Support has submitted a bug to Development. Please pay a particular attention to the following statuses; they indicate that the Support Engineer is waiting for a response from you: Customer Working usually means that your Support Engineer needs you to collect additional information, needs you to try something or to apply a patch, or has more questions for you. Solution Offered indicates that the Support Engineer has identified the problem and has provided you with a solution. Auto-Close or Close Initiated are statuses you don’t want to see. Monitoring your Service Request helps prevent your issues from reaching these statuses. They usually indicate that the Support Engineer did not receive the requested information or action from you. This is important. If you fail to respond, the Support Engineer will attempt to contact you three times over a two-week period. If these attempts are unsuccessful, he or she will initiate the Auto-Close process. At the end of this additional two-week period, if you have not updated the Service Request, your Service Request is considered abandoned and the Support Engineer will assign a Customer Abandoned status. A Support Engineer doesn’t like to see this status, since he or she has been working to solve your issue, but we know our customers dislike it even more, since it means their issue is not moving forward. You can avoid delays in resolving your issue by monitoring your Service Request and acting quickly when you see the status change. Respond to the request from the engineer to answer questions, collect information, or to try the offered solution. Then the Support Engineer can continue working the issue and the Service Request keeps moving forward towards resolution. Keep in mind that if you take an extended period of time to respond to a request or to provide the information requested, the Support Engineer cannot take the next step. You may inadvertently send an implicit message about the problem’s urgency that may not match the Service Request priority, and your need for an answer. Help us help you. We want to get you the answer as quickly as possible so you can stay focused on your company’s objectives. Now, back to our initial question. To monitor Service Requests or not to monitor Service Requests? I think the answer is clear: yes, monitor your Service Request to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.

  Read the article

• Need to add request headers to every request in Apache

  - by 115748146017471869327

  I'm trying to add a header value to every request via Apache (ver 2.2). I've edited my VirtualHost to include the following vaiations: (I've tried both RequestHeader and Header, add and set in all of these cases) RequestHeader set X-test_url "Test" or <Directory /> RequestHeader set X-test_url "Test" </Directory> or <Location ~ "/*" > RequestHeader set X-test_url "Test" </Location> It's hard to explain how I've gotten to this point, but I have to get this done in Apache. Again I'm trying to add the header value to every request. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Apache taking up a lot of CPU while running request-tracker4

  - by bhowmik

  I am trying out a request-tracker installation on an EC2 micro instance. The specs for the micro instance are as follows 1) Ubuntu 12.04 64bit, 613MB RAM, 8GB Hard Drive 2) Running request-tracker 4.0.4 from the repository, perl 5.14.2, Apache2, MySQL5 3) Request-tracker4.0.4 running with mod_perl2 and Worker mpm 4) Apache configured with Worker MPM. Config snippet given below Timeout 150 KeepAlive On MaxKeepAliveRequests 60 KeepAliveTimeout 2 <IfModule mpm_worker_module> StartServers 2 MinSpareThreads 25 MaxSpareThreads 75 ThreadLimit 64 ThreadsPerChild 25 MaxClients 150 MaxRequestsPerChild 0 </IfModule> Now when I start Apache2 it works fine for some time and after a while the CPU load shoots up to 99% or more. Usually it is one or more Apache processes doing this. I've tried a to modify the worker module configuration without any luck. The log files for both Apache2 and request-tracker4 are set to log debug messages and don't show anything to indicate what could be causing this. The system gets a maximum of 5 users at any given time and usually (90% of the time) it is just 2. I've just installed it and we only have 20 tickets in the database. I don't think its the memory thats causing the issue since the server isn't swapping or even close to it and I hardly see the memory usage go up. Would appreciate any pointers on how to go about troubleshooting this. In case it helps I've also tried this out a similar installation on a small instance (Identical settings except RAM bumped upto 1.7GB) and I still see the issue.

  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

• JSF: initial request and postback request?

  - by Harry Pham

  Please take a look at this below line of code in JSF <h:inputText id="name" value="#{customer.name}" /> Quote from java.sun.com For an initial request of the page containing this tag, the JavaServer Faces implementation evaluates the #{customer.name} expression during the render response phase of the lifecycle. During this phase, the expression merely accesses the value of name from the customer bean, as is done in immediate evaluation. For a postback request, the JavaServer Faces implementation evaluates the expression at different phases of the lifecycle, during which the value is retrieved from the request, validated, and propagated to the customer bean. I am not sure I understand initial request vs postback request. Does the client browser make two different request to the webserver?

  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

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >