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: <12089883.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:54:02 -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: <007d01c7db42$0536cb30$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> <12089421.post@talk.nabble.com>
 <007d01c7db42$0536cb30$10aa210a@SQLI50624>


I tried removing annotations from the execute method, and the field "confir=
m"
is still getting validated. It seems like any validation annotation added i=
n
my action causes validation of the defined fields whenever a method not
defined in the validation interceptor configuration (methods excluded from
validation) is called.=20

Could it be that I'm trying to do something that is not supported? I'll hav=
e
another go on google. Found this post in this list, so it looks like I'm no=
t
alone:

http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-XML-vs-annotation-validation---thoughts--tf422=
9633.html#a12032762
post=20


Arno wrote:
>=20
> Well, looking at my code using Validations on methods, I noticed that I
> used
> it only on one method and used @SkipValidation on my other action methods
> (which worked). So I did not try the multi validations scenario.
>=20
> Just to test, let the validations annotation on only one method and check
> what happens.
>=20
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : beto [mailto:bjorn.tore.wiken@gmail.com]=20
> Envoy=C3=A9 : vendredi 10 ao=C3=BBt 2007 13:21
> =C3=80 : user@struts.apache.org
> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>=20
>=20
> 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?
>=20
>=20
> 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 =
for
>>>> 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
>>>> added
>>>> 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
> --=20
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242=
670
> .html#a12089421
> 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#a12089883
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