pat-validation: Added the possibility to check for fields equality #740
Conversation
|
Very useful! |
This is particularly interesting for password or email confirmation fields
ale-rt
force-pushed
the
pat-validation-equality
branch
from
95ef6aa to
ec5c5a3
Compare
| | Property | Description | Default | Type | | ||
| |-------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------|------| | ||
| | disable-selector | A selector for elements that should be disabled when there are errors in the form. | | CSS Selector | | ||
| | equality | Field-specific. The name of another input this input should equal to (useful for password confirmation). | | String | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please also add an entry for message-equality.
| this.$el.find("[name=" + opts.equality + "]").each( | ||
| function (idx, el) { | ||
| if (input.value !== el.value) { | ||
| constraint.equality = {'attribute': opts.equality, 'message': '^'+opts.message["equality"]}; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my understanding of http://validatejs.org/#validators-equality the attribute attribute shouldn't be neccessary.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you know what the '^ is for? it looks strange, but I see all the other message-* attributes have it too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In my understanding of http://validatejs.org/#validators-equality the
attributeattribute shouldn't be neccessary.
If I remove it the tests fail. I think attribute is mandatory when you also specify a message.
Do you know what the '^ is for? it looks strange, but I see all the other message-* attributes have it too.
No idea, I put it there to be consistent with the already existent code :)
src/pat/validation/validation.js
Outdated
| } | ||
|
|
||
| // Handle fields equality | ||
| if (opts.equality && input.value) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the && input.value check should be removed. You probably still want to check for equality if no value was given. Instead of checking for && input.value we can enforce presence via the required attribute.
|
I implemented all the requested changes except #740 (comment) because either I did not understand how to do it or it is not possible to omit the |
4 participants
This is particularly interesting for password or email confirmation fields