gt;>>> than End Date) in onValidateForm, I would need to inject the two fields,
>>>> get
>>>> the tracker from the form, and call inError() to find out if any of the
>>>> dates are invalid (missing or bad syntax). If there are no errors, then
>&
es bound to the
fields
have been updated. Ideally, I would love to have another version of
ValidateForm event which is fired before Success and only if there
are no
errors.
Benny
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Sebastian Hennebrueder
wrote:
Hello,
the intended validation method for cross
Do you see what I am
>> getting at?
>>
>> Doing this in onSuccess is a lot easier since I won't need to check for
>> existing errors, and I know that the date properties bound to the fields
>> have been updated. Ideally, I would love to have another versi
ors, and I know that the date properties bound to the
fields
have been updated. Ideally, I would love to have another version of
ValidateForm event which is fired before Success and only if there
are no
errors.
Benny
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Sebastian Hennebrueder
wrote:
Hello,
th
onSuccess is a lot easier since I won't need to check for
existing errors, and I know that the date properties bound to the fields
have been updated. Ideally, I would love to have another version of
ValidateForm event which is fired before Success and only if there are no
errors.
Benny
On Tue,
uld you explain what you mean by keeping my
validation "in the correct callback"?
I think it's about writing clean and maintainable code.
For other developers reading back your code it makes more sense if you add
your validation errors in the ValidateForm event and to perform
t you mean by keeping my
>> > validation "in the correct callback"?
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it's about writing clean and maintainable code.
>> For other developers reading back your code it makes more sense if you
>> add
>> your validat
ou mean by keeping my
> > validation "in the correct callback"?
>
>
>
> I think it's about writing clean and maintainable code.
> For other developers reading back your code it makes more sense if you add
> your validation errors in the ValidateForm event and
> Thanks for your response. Could you explain what you mean by keeping my
> validation "in the correct callback"?
I think it's about writing clean and maintainable code.
For other developers reading back your code it makes more sense if you add
your validation errors in t
your validation in the correct callback. I
> would just use nested loops to first check for field level validation then
> if successful, perform cross field validation.
>
>
> Benny Law wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am new to Tapestry 5 and have a question
Hello,
>
> I am new to Tapestry 5 and have a question about the ValidateForm event. I
> understand that this event is where cross-field validations should be
> done,
> but I find that before I can do the validations, I first need to check if
> there are any field-level validation
Hello,
I am new to Tapestry 5 and have a question about the ValidateForm event. I
understand that this event is where cross-field validations should be done,
but I find that before I can do the validations, I first need to check if
there are any field-level validation errors with those fields
12 matches
Mail list logo
