[Form Validation] Add form validation rule: condition #988
Conversation
auto-assign
bot
requested review from
ColinFrick,
exoego,
y0hami,
lubber-de and
prudho
lubber-de
added
state/awaiting-reviews
lubber-de
added
the
state/awaiting-response
vibridi
force-pushed
the
FUI-985/form-field-value-rule
branch
from
dc402cc
to
4159e1f
Compare
y0hami
removed
the
state/awaiting-response
Add the 'condition' validation rule. It allows form field values to be validated when another field is set to a certain value. Closes fomantic#985
vibridi
force-pushed
the
FUI-985/form-field-value-rule
branch
from
4159e1f
to
47959e4
Compare
| @@ -1823,6 +1824,58 @@ $.fn.form.settings = { | |||
| ; | |||
| }, | |||
|
|
|||
| // applies rule if another field's value satisfies a condition | |||
| condition: function(value, ancillary, $module) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a little difficulty to understand the new syntax...
My understanding is condition[FIELD_NAME, RULE1, RULE2, ... RULEn].
Am I on the right track?
If so, I feel it is a bit strange to treat FIELD_NAME and RULEs in the flat way.
I suggest a JSON-like syntax like { FIELD_NAME: [RULE], FIELD_NAME2: [RULE1, RULE2] }.
This syntax distinguishes FIELD_NAME and RULEs.
This will also can cover use-case to have conditions on multiple fields.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, the current way will be too confusing for users and doesn't allow for expansion of the rule. I think your suggestion of making it JSON like will be our best shot to making it easy to use and easy to improve in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@exoego @hammy2899 Hello guys, based on what the author of this issue (#985) writes:
A built-in rule to validate a form field based on the value from another field of the same form.
I intended to lay out the parameters as follows, basically using the syntax proposed by the issue author:
condition[FIELD_NAME, VALUE_TO_CHECK_AGAINST, RULE_TO_APPLY]
which means: "if THAT_FIELD's value is VALUE, then apply RULE to this field".
Also I intended to set a hard limit on what RULE_TO_APPLY can be, namely one single existing rule, on purpose. I was looking to not risk having recursive rules, or excessively complicated config.
With that said I'm absolutely open to improve this. If you think JSON-like syntax is the way to go, I'll change accordingly 👍
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hammy2899 @exoego What are we going to do with this now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think making this JSON like is still the best option we have especially for future support.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@hammy2899 please can you set out a small spec of how you envision this being JSON-like, then I'll try to take it from there. Thanks
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have a little difficulty to understand the new syntax...
My understanding is
condition[FIELD_NAME, RULE1, RULE2, ... RULEn].
Am I on the right track?
If so, I feel it is a bit strange to treatFIELD_NAMEandRULEs in the flat way.I suggest a JSON-like syntax like
{ FIELD_NAME: [RULE], FIELD_NAME2: [RULE1, RULE2] }.
This syntax distinguishesFIELD_NAMEandRULEs.
This will also can cover use-case to have conditions on multiple fields.
Like how @exoego said
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@vibridi Are you still interested in continuing to adjust the PR ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@lubber-de I'm sorry, I don't think I will be able to work on this at this time. Feel free to close or take over. Thanks!
y0hami
added
the
state/on-hold
lubber-de
removed
the
state/awaiting-reviews
lubber-de
dismissed stale reviews from ColinFrick, prudho, and themself
via
ed995fc
Description
This PR adds the
conditionvalidation rule. It allows to apply an arbitrary rule to a field value depending on another field value.Test Case
After: JSFiddle
Closes
#985