Built-in format checker changes

[gazpachoking]

It would be nice if all of the built in format checkers were available in the FormatChecker class, to ease the creation of an instance with a custom subset of any of the format checkers available.

We currently provide draft3_ and draft4_format_checker instances, which have the subset of checkers defined in each draft. These are a bit problematic, as it might be unexpected when format checkers defined in the spec are not available in them due to required libraries being present. Not sure what the best solution is yet.

[Julian]

Not having format checkers present when the required dependencies aren't satisfied doesn't bother me that much. If anything we could improve the documentation if you think there's something there that could be clearer. We could perhaps more prominently discuss the attribute on format checkers that contains all the known checkers, which is public and could be used to inspect the available checkers.

Putting all the format checkers in the class though is fine with me if we have a reasonable way of doing that.

Since this is mostly for our own sanity this is pretty low priority I'm guessing.

[gazpachoking]

Since this is mostly for our own sanity this is pretty low priority I'm guessing.

My goal was so that an user can instantiate a FormatChecker with the subset of properties they desire. Right now you can't do FormatChecker(formats=('time', 'email')) because 'time' checker is just in the draft3_format_checker instance, not on the class.
I'll have another go at doing this.

[gazpachoking]

What do you think about something like this? gazpachoking@b0a694f

[gazpachoking]

Or maybe _checks_drafts should be usable like @_checks_drafts("email", raises=blah) for checkers on both drafts, and @_checks_drafts(draft3="ip-address", draft4="ipv4", raises=blah) for checkers on draft 3 only or when the name differs.

[Julian]

Um, I'm OK with that.

[gazpachoking]

You sound hesitant...

[Julian]

:) nah. We should document the canonical names for the format checkers.
Other than that I'm not hesitant, just not particularly excited :p.
On Apr 11, 2013 9:08 AM, "Chase Sterling" notifications@github.com wrote:

You sound hesitant...

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/78#issuecomment-16233127
.

[gazpachoking]

The way I have it now puts both names onto the class, should it only add the canonical name? That might complicated things a bit.

BTW, do you prefer _checks_drafts like I have it, or the keyword idea?

[Julian]

Slight preference for the keyword way, but it's private so I don't really
care either way too strongly.

And yeah I saw both names are going to be on the class, but we should have
a table somewhere in the documentation where we mention format validation
and that table should list a single name for simplicity I think.
On Apr 11, 2013 9:16 AM, "Chase Sterling" notifications@github.com wrote:

The way I have it now puts both names onto the class, should it only add
the canonical name? That might complicated things a bit.

BTW, do you prefer _checks_drafts like I have it, or the keyword idea?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/78#issuecomment-16233571
.

[gazpachoking]

Sounds good.