Email validation #241
Email validation #241
Conversation
lue97
requested review from
Assyarul and
ivantjh
and removed request for
Assyarul
| contacts in FriendDex. A success message is shown in the status message. | ||
|
|
||
| 3. Adding a duplicate person. <br> | ||
| * Prerequisite: A person with the name `john doe` must already be in FriendDex. <br> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we add something here saying that the names are case-insensitive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this point should belong in the UG
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, I think its better to state it here as the developer may not have looked at the UG.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll add a link to the particular section in the UG. Explaining the intricacies of a command shouldn't fall under test manual.
docs/UserGuide.md
Outdated
| **A**: Email stored in FriendDex is a wilful violation of (RFC 5322)[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322]. The email | ||
| allowed in FriendDex shall adhere to the following rules: | ||
| * Emails shall have the format `local-part@label(.label)*`. | ||
| * `local-part` contains at least one alphanumeric character with the following special characters <code>.!#$%&'*+\/=?^_`{|}~-</code>. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can help reword to "local-part contains at least one alphanumeric character. local-part allows the following special characters .!#$%&'*+/=?^_`{|}~-.
| private static final String SPECIAL_CHARACTERS = "!#$%&'*+/=?`{|}~^.-"; | ||
| public static final String MESSAGE_CONSTRAINTS = "Emails should be of the format local-part@domain " | ||
| private static final String SPECIAL_CHARACTERS = ".!#$%&'*+/=?`{|}~^.-"; | ||
| public static final String MESSAGE_CONSTRAINTS = "Emails should be of the format local-part@label(.label)*" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Simplify to English for the format portion, nobody will understand the brackets and asterisk. Emails should be of the format "local-part@label". Multiple labels can follow after provided that they are prefixed with a single period.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel that this expression is adequate. If the user doesn't get it he can just refer to point 3. I'll add an example in the usage message
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, up to you. But I still opt for longer explanations for better clarity than brevity.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #241 +/- ##
=========================================
Coverage 63.51% 63.51%
Complexity 800 800
=========================================
Files 135 135
Lines 3130 3130
Branches 348 348
=========================================
Hits 1988 1988
Misses 998 998
Partials 144 144
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
Apparently the regex checks that came with AB3 is incorrect.