Mailing-List: contact user-help@struts.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Struts Users Mailing List" <user@struts.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lists@nabble.com designates
 216.139.236.158 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <12089421.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:21:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: beto <bjorn.tore.wiken@gmail.com>
To: user@struts.apache.org
Subject: RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
In-Reply-To: <007001c7db3a$4d3edce0$10aa210a@SQLI50624>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
References: <df8f9c50708090637k462c4fd8v5f0fb301ccca0ea8@mail.gmail.com>
 <006901c7da94$480f84a0$10aa210a@SQLI50624> <12087696.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <006201c7db2e$0399fb30$10aa210a@SQLI50624> <12088476.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <007001c7db3a$4d3edce0$10aa210a@SQLI50624>


Yes, I removed the annotations from the setters. I might be overlooking
something, but I'm not sure where to start looking at this moment. Is there
any more details I could provide to help you see the clear picture?


Arno wrote:
>=20
> Pretty strange indeed. Did you remove all the validation annotations on
> the
> field setters?
>=20
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : beto [mailto:bjorn.tore.wiken@gmail.com]=20
> Envoy=C3=A9 : vendredi 10 ao=C3=BBt 2007 11:56
> =C3=80 : user@struts.apache.org
> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>=20
>=20
> Hi again, and thank you for your answer.
>=20
> I've tried using @Validations at the method level as you point out. I'll
> try
> to illustrate:
>=20
> I have an action, not annotated with @Validation, with three action
> methods;
> input, execute and confirm (custom action method).
>=20
> The input method has no annotations and is not validated as expected.
>=20
> The execute method is annotated with @Validations:
>=20
> @Validations(requiredStrings=3D{
> @RequiredStringValidator(fieldName=3D"amount",
> message=3D"Amount is required", key=3D"amount.required") }, regexFields=
=3D{
> @RegexFieldValidator(fieldName=3D"amount", expression=3D"^\\d+$",
> message=3D"Amount has to be numeric", key=3D"amount.numeric") })
> public String execute() throws Exception {
>   ...
> }
>=20
> The confirm method is also annotated with @Validations:
>=20
> @Validations(expressions=3D{ @ExpressionValidator(expression=3D"confirm =
=3D=3D
> true", message=3D"test") })
> public String confirm() throws Exception {
>   ...
> }
>=20
> And here comes the confusing part. When I call my action with no method
> name
> indicator (say MyAction, not MyAction_confirm), both fields (amount and
> confirm) is validated. I just want to validate "amount" when execute is
> called and only the field "confirm" when the confirm method is called.
>=20
> What am I doing wrong?
>=20
> beto
>=20
>=20
> Arno wrote:
>>=20
>> This is the Validations (with a 's' at the end :-) ) that can be put on =
a
>> method. The syntax is pretty confusing but the functionality quite neat.
>>=20
>>
> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/struts2-core/apidocs/com/opensymphony/xwork2=
/va
>> lidator/annotations/Validations.html
>>=20
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : beto [mailto:bjorn.tore.wiken@gmail.com]=20
>> Envoy=C3=A9 : vendredi 10 ao=C3=BBt 2007 10:57
>> =C3=80 : user@struts.apache.org
>> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>>=20
>>=20
>> Hi.
>>=20
>> I've tried using validation annotation (which works great) and ran into
>> the
>> scenario mentioned by Joseph. I have different action methods which
>> requires
>> different set of validation rules. I can not find out how to set up
>> validation annotation to differentiate the validation rules based on
>> which
>> action method that is called. I do not wish to use validation xml-files
>> if
>> I
>> can avoid it, and will probably end up creating separate action classes
>> in
>> these scenarios if not anybody can point out a solution to this problem.
>>=20
>> Am I missing something?
>>=20
>> Do you have the solution Arno? :-)=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Arno wrote:
>>>=20
>>> You should check the Javadoc of the
>>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.validator.annotations.Validation annotation.
>>>=20
>>> Syntax example:
>>>=20
>>> @Validations(
>>>              requiredFields =3D
>>>                      {@RequiredFieldValidator(type =3D
>>> ValidatorType.SIMPLE,
>>> fieldName =3D "customfield", message =3D "You must enter a value for
>>> field.")},
>>>              requiredStrings =3D
>>>                      {@RequiredStringValidator(type =3D
>>> ValidatorType.SIMPLE,
>>> fieldName =3D "stringisrequired", message =3D "You must enter a value f=
or
>>> string.")}
>>>     =20
>>>      )
>>>      public String execute() throws Exception {
>>>          return SUCCESS;
>>>      }
>>>=20
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : j alex [mailto:strutstwouser@gmail.com]=20
>>> Envoy=C3=A9 : jeudi 9 ao=C3=BBt 2007 15:38
>>> =C3=80 : Struts Users Mailing List
>>> Objet : S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> Is there a way to declaratively restrict validations depending on the
>>> method
>>> within the Action? - this could be useful for wizard-like forms where
>>> each
>>> step of the wizard has a set of fields ; corresponds to a different
>>> method
>>> but all of them share the same Action.
>>>=20
>>> I can think of having an expression validator based on currentstep adde=
d
>>> to
>>> every field short-circuited ; but that's more of a workaround rather
>>> than
>>> the right way to do it.
>>>=20
>>> Thanks,
>>> Joseph
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>=20
>> --=20
>> View this message in context:
>>
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242=
670
>> .html#a12087696
>> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242=
670
> .html#a12088476
> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>=20
>=20
>=20

--=20
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-A=
ction-method---ideas--tf4242670.html#a12089421
Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org