Improve flexibility of email validation in the ValidationHelper #7310
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
* ValidationHelper.EmailRegEx can now be modified to suit the users needs * Regex updated to be more inclusive - see https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#valid-e-mail-address
|
@hikalkan What do you think? |
|
I think that seems fine. |
hikalkan
approved these changes
Jan 20, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Resolves #7265
WHATWG state that the rules defined by RFC5322 are not good enough. They offer an alternative regex which they say violates the standard, but it works better. See https://html.spec.whatwg.org/#valid-e-mail-address
Instead of using two properties
EmailRegexandStrictEmailRegex, I propose we simply update the current regex and use a more inclusive regex. If you think we should include both then I will update the PR to include both and use the W3C regex for the less strict one. I have updated the tests to include a test foradmin@localhost, which now passes. The old1024x768@60hztest would have passed for the same reason so I remove it.