cascade-dataform — general Data::FormValidator discussion list

[dfv] new module for validating complex data structures

[Todd W. <tr...@sb...>]

Hello,

I have the beginnings of a module that extends dfv to allow validation 
of complex data structures.

https://github.com/trwww/perl-dataformvalidator-multi

I'll be sending this to CPAN probably this weekend unless anyone has 
feedback before then.

Thanks!

Re: [dfv] Multiple constraint_methods for a field

[David W. <dav...@va...>]

Thanks

I ended up using FV_and from 
Data::FormValidator::Constraints::MethodsFactory to define constraint 
methods on my email field as follows.

email => [
                     {
                         constraint_method => email ,
                         name => 'email_valid'
                     } ,
                     {
                         constraint_method =>
                             FV_and ( email , representative_known ( 
$self -> dbh ) ) ,
                    fields => [ qw / society / ] ,
                         name => 'representative_known'
                 } ,
             ] ,

The email method executes twice but the representative_known method only 
executes if the email method confirms that the email provided has a 
valid format. I didn't want the representative_known method to execute 
if the email is invalid as that would be a wasteful database access.

Dave

On 11/07/16 08:57, Jonas B. Nielsen wrote:
> Hi Dave.
>
> Not the prettiest solution. but you could do a two phase validation:
>
> my $dfv = Data::FormValidator->new({
>     profile_1 => { # usual profile definition here },
>     profile_2 => { # another profile definition },
> });
>
> my $results1 = $dfv->check(\%input_hash,'profile_1’);
>
> my $results2 = $dfv->check(\%input_hash,'profile_2');
>
> Examples lifted from the documentation:
>
> https://metacpan.org/pod/Data::FormValidator
>
> jonasbn
>
>> On 11 Jul 2016, at 01:44, David Williamson <dav...@va...> wrote:
>>
>> I have a form field "email". I want to apply two constraints to it.
>> Firstly, I want to check that the email entered looks valid. Secondly,
>> if (and only if) the email entered looks valid I want to check that is
>> known to be associated with a society. That second check is specific to
>> the particular functionality of my web site.
>>
>> Here is my entry for the email field in constraint_methods.
>>
>> email => [
>>                      {
>>                          constraint_method => email ,
>>                          name => 'email_valid'
>>                      } ,
>>                      {
>>                          constraint_method => representative_known ,
>>                     fields => [ qw / society / ]
>>                  } ,
>>              ] ,
>>
>> I've used the email constraint from Data::FormValidator::Constraints and
>> provided my own name to associate to my own error message. I have
>> another error message associated with the representative_known constraint.
>>
>> When I test with an invalid email address I get both error messages
>> returned in an array, which suggests to me that both constraints have
>> been executed. How do I stop the representative_known constraint from
>> being run if the email fails the email constraint?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
>> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
>> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
>> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
>> http://sdm.link/attshape
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cascade-DataForm mailing list
>> Cas...@li...
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cascade-dataform

Re: [dfv] Multiple constraint_methods for a field

[Jonas B. N. <jo...@gm...>]

Hi Dave.

Not the prettiest solution. but you could do a two phase validation:

my $dfv = Data::FormValidator->new({
   profile_1 => { # usual profile definition here },
   profile_2 => { # another profile definition },
});

my $results1 = $dfv->check(\%input_hash,'profile_1’);

my $results2 = $dfv->check(\%input_hash,'profile_2');

Examples lifted from the documentation:

https://metacpan.org/pod/Data::FormValidator

jonasbn

> On 11 Jul 2016, at 01:44, David Williamson <dav...@va...> wrote:
> 
> I have a form field "email". I want to apply two constraints to it.
> Firstly, I want to check that the email entered looks valid. Secondly,
> if (and only if) the email entered looks valid I want to check that is
> known to be associated with a society. That second check is specific to
> the particular functionality of my web site.
> 
> Here is my entry for the email field in constraint_methods.
> 
> email => [
>                     {
>                         constraint_method => email ,
>                         name => 'email_valid'
>                     } ,
>                     {
>                         constraint_method => representative_known ,
>                    fields => [ qw / society / ]
>                 } ,
>             ] ,
> 
> I've used the email constraint from Data::FormValidator::Constraints and
> provided my own name to associate to my own error message. I have
> another error message associated with the representative_known constraint.
> 
> When I test with an invalid email address I get both error messages
> returned in an array, which suggests to me that both constraints have
> been executed. How do I stop the representative_known constraint from
> being run if the email fails the email constraint?
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> _______________________________________________
> Cascade-DataForm mailing list
> Cas...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cascade-dataform

[dfv] Multiple constraint_methods for a field

[David W. <dav...@va...>]

I have a form field "email". I want to apply two constraints to it. 
Firstly, I want to check that the email entered looks valid. Secondly, 
if (and only if) the email entered looks valid I want to check that is 
known to be associated with a society. That second check is specific to 
the particular functionality of my web site.

Here is my entry for the email field in constraint_methods.

email => [
                     {
                         constraint_method => email ,
                         name => 'email_valid'
                     } ,
                     {
                         constraint_method => representative_known ,
                    fields => [ qw / society / ]
                 } ,
             ] ,

I've used the email constraint from Data::FormValidator::Constraints and 
provided my own name to associate to my own error message. I have 
another error message associated with the representative_known constraint.

When I test with an invalid email address I get both error messages 
returned in an array, which suggests to me that both constraints have 
been executed. How do I stop the representative_known constraint from 
being run if the email fails the email constraint?

Dave

[dfv] select validation

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

Hi,

for a profile that validates a select field, which can have multiple
options selected I'd like the results hash to contain an empty array ref
if no option is selected. Is this possible?

Thank you,
Jiri

-- 
Jiří Pavlovský

[dfv] defaults to set value on empty field

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

Hi,

I'd like to use 'defaults' in my profile to set value on a field in case 
it was empty.
But the default overrided the user provided value.

So how can I achieve my goal?

Thank you,

-- 
Jiří Pavlovský

Re: [dfv] require_some must have values

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 04/24/2012 12:16 PM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm a bit stuck here. 
> 
> Among this 'require_some' entry, I need at least one of them to return a
> 1 value. These are individual checkboxes that return either 0
> (defaults_regexp_map) or 1 (when checked).
> 
> require_some => {
> 	notify=>[1, qw/notify_down notify_up notify_new notify_gone notify_back/],
> },
> 
> defaults_regexp_map => {
>         qr/^notify_/ => 0,
> },
> 
> How can I specify a constraint that would kick in when all the 'notify'
> values are 0?

Constraints must always be tied to a single field. So, you would
arbitrary pick one of the fields to apply the constraint to, like
notify_down.

You would then write a custom constraint for it, and the constraint
would only return success if all the notify values were zero. Here's the
section on writing custom constraints:

https://metacpan.org/module/Data::FormValidator::Constraints#WRITING-YOUR-OWN-CONSTRAINT-ROUTINES

  Mark

[dfv] require_some must have values

[Louis-David M. <vin...@ap...>]

Hi,

I'm a bit stuck here. 

Among this 'require_some' entry, I need at least one of them to return a
1 value. These are individual checkboxes that return either 0
(defaults_regexp_map) or 1 (when checked).

require_some => {
	notify=>[1, qw/notify_down notify_up notify_new notify_gone notify_back/],
},

defaults_regexp_map => {
        qr/^notify_/ => 0,
},

How can I specify a constraint that would kick in when all the 'notify'
values are 0?

Thanks,

[dfv] Named Constraints supported?

[Matt <ma...@cp...>]

Hi All,
I've been working on putting together a somewhat simple on-the-fly DFV 
profile generator, but have hit a bit of a roadblock.

I am trying to attach multiple constraints to a given field with a 
profile like so :

{
   constraint_methods =>  {
     username =>  [
       sub { ... },
       sub { ... },
       qr/^\W+$/,
       { constraint =>  qr/^\W+$/, name =>  "username_valid" },
       { constraint =>  sub { ... }, name =>  "username_length" },
       { constraint =>  sub { ... }, name =>  "username_taken" },
     ],
   },
   required =>  "username",
}

Based on the documentation here:

http://search.cpan.org/~markstos/Data-FormValidator-4.66/lib/Data/FormValidator.pm#MULTIPLE_CONSTRAINTS

I am led to believe this should be possible.. but I'm catching the 
following error:

[error] Caught exception in SalesLink::Controller::Form->field "Value 
for constraint_method within hashref ''

not a code reference or Regexp . Do you need func(), not 'func'?

at 
/home/matt/perl5/perlbrew/perls/perl-5.12.3/lib/site_perl/5.12.3/Data/FormValidator.pm 
line 974."

Based on looking at D::FV's source it seems like this functionality is 
no longer supported, but I'd just like to confirm.

Does anyone have any suggestions for approaching this issue?


Cheers,

Matt

Re: [dfv] Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

On 21.2.2011 15:45, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 02/20/2011 02:38 PM, Jiří Pavlovský wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I want to use Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload to validate photo
>> upload. I want to check the image type and optionally (based on other
>> parameter) its dimensions).
>> I'm not quite sure what is the best way to handle the optional
>> conditional constraint.
>> What I did was to store the constraint subroutines returned by the
>> appropriate methods in a variable and wrote my own constrain methods.
>> I'm just not sure whether it is the best approach.
> This looks Ok.
>
> If you want to have two constraints only have one be evaluated if the
> first one passes, than you might use make_and_constraint() from the
> ConstraintFactory module.
>
Thanks!

Re: [dfv] Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 02/20/2011 02:38 PM, Jiří Pavlovský wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I want to use Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload to validate photo 
> upload. I want to check the image type and optionally (based on other 
> parameter) its dimensions).
> I'm not quite sure what is the best way to handle the optional 
> conditional constraint.
> What I did was to store the constraint subroutines returned by the 
> appropriate methods in a variable and wrote my own constrain methods.
> I'm just not sure whether it is the best approach. 

This looks Ok.

If you want to have two constraints only have one be evaluated if the
first one passes, than you might use make_and_constraint() from the
ConstraintFactory module.

Normally if you just define two constraints, DFV will evaluate both of them.

For anything more complex, writing a custom constraint as you have done
is a reasonable solution.

Here's a link to the make_and_constraint() docs:

http://goo.gl/iBjKo

  Mark

[dfv] Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

Hello,

I want to use Data::FormValidator::Constraints::Upload to validate photo 
upload. I want to check the image type and optionally (based on other 
parameter) its dimensions).
I'm not quite sure what is the best way to handle the optional 
conditional constraint.
What I did was to store the constraint subroutines returned by the 
appropriate methods in a variable and wrote my own constrain methods.
I'm just not sure whether it is the best approach.

Here is what I have:

   my $image_type_constraint = file_format(mime_types => ['image/png'] );
   my $image_size_constraint = image_max_dimensions(200,200);

...

  constraint_methods => {
         photo_file  => {
             constraint_method  => sub {
                 my ( $dfv, $photo_file, $main_web_photo,) = @_;
                 return 0 unless $image_type_constraint->($dfv, 
$photo_file);

                 if ($main_web_photo) {
                     return 0 unless $image_size_constraint->($dfv, 
$photo_file);
                 }

                 return 1;

             },
             params         => [ qw( photo_file main_web_photo ) ],
         },
     },

Re: [dfv] field filters not executed for optional?

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

On 15.12.2010 15:36, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> I stripped my profile to the following test case. The optiona; value is
>> not even amongst 'valid' fields. Did I misunderstood the '
>> missing_optional_valid' option?
> Yes. It has a confusing detail when used in combination with checkboxes.
>   In fact, someone just ran into the same issue a few days ago.
>
> As the documentation for missing_optional_valid states, it is to cover
> "optional fields with empty values". Despite the name, by intent it does
> not cover completely missing values.  The nature of checkboxes is
> related-- unlike a text field a checkbox won't submit anything if it is
> not checked. ( Rather than submitting the name with no value, there will
> be nothing ).
>
> So, setting defaults in combination with checkboxes is recommended. It's
> something I do myself.
>

Ok,thanks. Now I got it working.

Regards,
Jiri

Re: [dfv] field filters not executed for optional?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

> I stripped my profile to the following test case. The optiona; value is 
> not even amongst 'valid' fields. Did I misunderstood the ' 
> missing_optional_valid' option?

Yes. It has a confusing detail when used in combination with checkboxes.
 In fact, someone just ran into the same issue a few days ago.

As the documentation for missing_optional_valid states, it is to cover
"optional fields with empty values". Despite the name, by intent it does
not cover completely missing values.  The nature of checkboxes is
related-- unlike a text field a checkbox won't submit anything if it is
not checked. ( Rather than submitting the name with no value, there will
be nothing ).

So, setting defaults in combination with checkboxes is recommended. It's
something I do myself.

    Mark

Re: [dfv] field filters not executed for optional?

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

On 14.12.2010 22:29, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> what I want to achieve is to filter checkbox values so that they are
>> either 1 or 0, ie no undef values.
>>
>> So I put them into optional and set up field_filters for them with an
>> sub like this
>>
>>     sub checkbox_filter {
>>          return defined $_[0]&&  lc $_[0] eq 'on' ? 1 : 0;
>> }
>>
>> But it looks like the filed filters are never executed.
> They should be working. Could you supply a Test::More test case that
> shows they are not? Test::FormValidator may be useful.
>
> You could also post a version of your profile for us to review.

I stripped my profile to the following test case. The optiona; value is 
not even amongst 'valid' fields. Did I misunderstood the ' 
missing_optional_valid' option?

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;


use Test::FormValidator;

my $profile = {

   optional => [ 'approved'],
     filters       => ['trim'],

     field_filters => {
         approved => sub  {
                      defined $_[0] && lc $_[0] eq 'on' ? 1 : 0;
                 }
     },

     missing_optional_valid => 1,
};


use Test::More tests => 2;
my $tfv = Test::FormValidator->new;


$tfv->profile($profile);


# check that the profile detects missing distribution_date
$tfv->check();


$tfv->valid_ok(['approved'], 'Unchecked checkbox is valid');

my $results = $tfv->results;
is($results->valid('approved'), 0,  'Unchecked checkbox is 0');

Re: [dfv] field filters not executed for optional?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 12/14/2010 08:29 AM, Jiří Pavlovský wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> what I want to achieve is to filter checkbox values so that they are 
> either 1 or 0, ie no undef values.
> 
> So I put them into optional and set up field_filters for them with an 
> sub like this
> 
>    sub checkbox_filter {
>         return defined $_[0] && lc $_[0] eq 'on' ? 1 : 0;
> }
> 
> But it looks like the filed filters are never executed.

They should be working. Could you supply a Test::More test case that
shows they are not? Test::FormValidator may be useful.

You could also post a version of your profile for us to review.

   Mark

[dfv] field filters not executed for optional?

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

Hi,

what I want to achieve is to filter checkbox values so that they are 
either 1 or 0, ie no undef values.

So I put them into optional and set up field_filters for them with an 
sub like this

   sub checkbox_filter {
        return defined $_[0] && lc $_[0] eq 'on' ? 1 : 0;
}

But it looks like the filed filters are never executed.

Re: [dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

> OK, fair enough. But why do I have to add a 'defaults_regexp_map' in
> order to get my missing optionnals in the 'valid' hash? Shouldn't the
> 'missing_optional_valid' parameter do that? (notify_* are checkboxes)

As the documentation for missing_optional_valid states, it is to cover
"optional fields with empty values". Despite the name, by intent it does
not cover completely missing values.  The nature of checkboxes is
related-- unlike a text field a checkbox won't submit anything if it is
not checked. ( Rather than submitting the name with no value, there will
be nothing ).

So, setting defaults in combination with checkboxes is recommended. It's
something I do myself.

    Mark

Re: [dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Louis-David M. <vin...@ap...>]

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:49:30AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 10:30 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> >> On 12/09/2010 04:53 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> When using the $profile below, the 'missing_optional_valid' entries  are
> >>> never included in the valid hash. Specifically the notify_* checkboxes
> >>> in require_some are never returned when unchecked. Did I miss something?
> >>
> >> What happens if you add all of the "require_some" fields explicitly to
> >> an "optional" definition?
> > 
> > Then it works, but only if I also add:
> > 
> > 	defaults_regexp_map => {
> > 		 qr/^notify_/ => 0,
> > 	},
> > 
> > Shouldn't the 'require_some' values that are not actually required (as
> > per submit) be auto-added to 'optional'?
> 
> Not necessarily. There are two cases for one could intend "require_some"
> to be used:
> 
> - At least one of five fields is required. We do not care about fields
> which are not submitted. Either they are required are they are not in
> the profile.
> 
> - At least one of five fields is required. We would still like the
> non-required fields to be returned as valid.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to add require_some entires to optional if you
> want them all through as "valid".

OK, fair enough. But why do I have to add a 'defaults_regexp_map' in
order to get my missing optionnals in the 'valid' hash? Shouldn't the
'missing_optional_valid' parameter do that? (notify_* are checkboxes)

Re: [dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 12/09/2010 10:30 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
>> On 12/09/2010 04:53 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> When using the $profile below, the 'missing_optional_valid' entries  are
>>> never included in the valid hash. Specifically the notify_* checkboxes
>>> in require_some are never returned when unchecked. Did I miss something?
>>
>> What happens if you add all of the "require_some" fields explicitly to
>> an "optional" definition?
> 
> Then it works, but only if I also add:
> 
> 	defaults_regexp_map => {
> 		 qr/^notify_/ => 0,
> 	},
> 
> Shouldn't the 'require_some' values that are not actually required (as
> per submit) be auto-added to 'optional'?

Not necessarily. There are two cases for one could intend "require_some"
to be used:

- At least one of five fields is required. We do not care about fields
which are not submitted. Either they are required are they are not in
the profile.

- At least one of five fields is required. We would still like the
non-required fields to be returned as valid.

I think it's reasonable to add require_some entires to optional if you
want them all through as "valid".

   Mark

Re: [dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Louis-David M. <vin...@ap...>]

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:24:03AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 04:53 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > When using the $profile below, the 'missing_optional_valid' entries  are
> > never included in the valid hash. Specifically the notify_* checkboxes
> > in require_some are never returned when unchecked. Did I miss something?
> 
> What happens if you add all of the "require_some" fields explicitly to
> an "optional" definition?

Then it works, but only if I also add:

	defaults_regexp_map => {
		 qr/^notify_/ => 0,
	},

Shouldn't the 'require_some' values that are not actually required (as
per submit) be auto-added to 'optionnal'?

Re: [dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

On 12/09/2010 04:53 AM, Louis-David Mitterrand wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> When using the $profile below, the 'missing_optional_valid' entries  are
> never included in the valid hash. Specifically the notify_* checkboxes
> in require_some are never returned when unchecked. Did I miss something?

What happens if you add all of the "require_some" fields explicitly to
an "optional" definition?

   Mark

[dfv] missing_optional_valid ?

[Louis-David M. <vin...@ap...>]

Hi,

When using the $profile below, the 'missing_optional_valid' entries  are
never included in the valid hash. Specifically the notify_* checkboxes
in require_some are never returned when unchecked. Did I miss something?

Thanks,

	my $profile = {
		## for unchecked checkboxes
		missing_optional_valid => 1,
		required => [qw(
			id_rate
			),
		],
		require_some => {
			notify_down=>[1, qw/
				notify_down 
				notify_up 
				notify_new 
				notify_gone 
				notify_back
				/],
		},
		defaults => {
			id_cruise => $id_cruise,
		},
		filters => ['trim'],
		msgs => {
			format => '%s',
			missing => "missing entry",
		},
	};

[dfv] dependency based on two fields

[Jiří P. <ji...@ge...>]

  Hello,

how can I do the following:

I have two fields and some fields that depend on them. THis set of 
dependent fields varies based on the values of both of the fields.

I cannot figure out how to do to it with the dependencies option.

Thank you,
Jiri

Re: [dfv] chaining constraints

[Mark S. <ma...@su...>]

> How can I defer the second check until the first constraint validates?

This is what "make_and_constraint()" is for. It's a very old feature,
but I think it will work with newer-style constraint methods:

http://search.cpan.org/~markstos/Data-FormValidator-4.66/lib/Data/FormValidator/ConstraintsFactory.pm#make_and_constraint(_@constraints_)

Let us know if it doesn't.

   Mark