Quantcast

"one-to-many" validation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
16 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

"one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel

validation.patch (3K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Yaron Koren-2
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first.

-Yaron

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi Yaron,

Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update status?

On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first.

-Yaron

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Yaron Koren-2
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few questions:

- You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that, or you just didn't need it for textareas?

- Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it won't.

- It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose?

-Yaron


On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Yaron,

Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update status?


On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first.

-Yaron

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi Yaron,

Regarding yours questions.

- Yes, I've added this feature only for "text with autocomplete" and for "combobox". The reason of it very simple: I didn't need this functionality for "textarea". Actually, It seems to me, that we can very easily add this feature to "textarea" input.

- You are right. It works only for single-value inputs now.

- Yes. Field should be declared as "mandatory". I've decided to implement following case:

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category|existing values only|mandatory}}}

Will be validated for "one-to-many".

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category|mandatory}}}

Will be validated for "non-blank".

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category}}}

Won't be validated.

Thanks for feedback. If its needed I can make some changes in my patch. Please, keep me update.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few questions:

- You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that, or you just didn't need it for textareas?

- Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it won't.

- It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose?

-Yaron


On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Yaron,

Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update status?


On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first.

-Yaron

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Yaron Koren-2
Hi Vladimir,

Thanks - responses below.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Yaron,

Regarding yours questions.

- Yes, I've added this feature only for "text with autocomplete" and for "combobox". The reason of it very simple: I didn't need this functionality for "textarea". Actually, It seems to me, that we can very easily add this feature to "textarea" input.

Okay. Yes - it does, indeed, seem like that would be easy to do.
 

- You are right. It works only for single-value inputs now.

Okay. This is potentially a big problem, because it means that any input that held multiple values would automatically get rejected - if the allowed values were, say, "A", "B" and "C", and the user entered "A, B", the code would compare that to the three allowed values, see that it wasn't equal to any of them, and reject the value. Is there any way this can be fixed? It would require some more Javascript hacking, but I think it would definitely be worth it.
 

- Yes. Field should be declared as "mandatory". I've decided to implement following case:

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category|existing values only|mandatory}}}

Will be validated for "one-to-many".

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category|mandatory}}}

Will be validated for "non-blank".

{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from category=Category}}}

Won't be validated.

Well, that seems strange - "mandatory" and "existing values only" are two different restrictions, and either one could theoretically be used without the other. Is there any way these could be separated?

Thanks,
Yaron

 

Thanks for feedback. If its needed I can make some changes in my patch. Please, keep me update.

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few questions:

- You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that, or you just didn't need it for textareas?

- Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it won't.

- It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose?

-Yaron


On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Yaron,

Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update status?


On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir,

Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first.

-Yaron

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.

I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).

Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).

Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.

Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).

In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.

I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?

--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

badon
Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi Yaron,

Sorry for delay.

Regarding fields with multiple values. You are right, its big potential problem. But I can try to implement it support. Which fields can has multiple values?

Regarding mandatory fields. From my point of view this is correct behavioral. Mandatory - means "required field". Right? Then just in case: our cobobox is not required (not mandatory) and it has "existing values only" tag. How we should interpret empty field? Empty string - is not existing value from category for example.

Thanks for reply, I am going to thing about fields with multiple values.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, badon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088

--
View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1371217.html
Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

badon
I agree with Yaron. The "mandatory" parameter should have a limited meaning: something must be entered. The "existing values only" parameter should not require that something be entered. Instead, it only requires that IF something is entered, it must be an existing value.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Yaron Koren-2
In reply to this post by Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi Vlad,

The "text with autocomplete" and "textarea with autocomplete" input types both allow multiple values. If you're going to change the code to support it, please note the "delimiter" parameter - by default the delimiter is a comma, but it can be manually set to be a semicolon, newline, etc. instead.

Yes, a blank value should be accepted - just like the dropdown input lets the user choose a blank value in addition to all the pre-specified values (unless the field is mandatory).

-Yaron

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Yaron,

Sorry for delay.

Regarding fields with multiple values. You are right, its big potential problem. But I can try to implement it support. Which fields can has multiple values?

Regarding mandatory fields. From my point of view this is correct behavioral. Mandatory - means "required field". Right? Then just in case: our cobobox is not required (not mandatory) and it has "existing values only" tag. How we should interpret empty field? Empty string - is not existing value from category for example.

Thanks for reply, I am going to thing about fields with multiple values.

On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, badon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088

--
View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1371217.html
Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov




--
WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

badon
Here's a fresh report for this enhancement:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi everyone!

Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it?

On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM, badon <[hidden email]> wrote:
Here's a fresh report for this enhancement:

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976

--
View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1572068.html
Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Windows Azure Live!  Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011
Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for
developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it
provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online.
Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Stephan Gambke-2
Hi Vladimir.

On 30 May 2012 10:48, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed
> before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch
> (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it?

Is this really about SemanticFormsInputs? Or about SemanticForms? And
could you explain what you mean by "one-to-many" validation? I do not
understand it.

Cheers,
Stephan

(Sorry for sending this twice. Forgot the list.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
Hi Stephan!

I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug about it  https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can read current thread: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Stephan Gambke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Vladimir.

On 30 May 2012 10:48, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed
> before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch
> (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it?

Is this really about SemanticFormsInputs? Or about SemanticForms? And
could you explain what you mean by "one-to-many" validation? I do not
understand it.

Cheers,
Stephan

(Sorry for sending this twice. Forgot the list.)



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Stephan Gambke-2
I read the bug and the thread. I still do not understand what
"one-to-many" validation means. What do you want to validate against
what? What is the "one", what is the "many"? How would it be different
from normal validation?

On 30 May 2012 11:22, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug about
> it  https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can read
> current
> thread: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: "one-to-many" validation

Vladimir Kostyukov
You are right. Its just a normal validation with "values from" and "existing values only" tag. It the first message of this thread, I described the situations when current implantation doesn't work correctly (the same situation described in bug),

So, I was working on patch, which a) solves this problem b) add "existing values only" to  "text with autocomplete". Actually, I am going to make some changes in this patch and provide it again.

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephan Gambke <[hidden email]> wrote:
I read the bug and the thread. I still do not understand what
"one-to-many" validation means. What do you want to validate against
what? What is the "one", what is the "many"? How would it be different
from normal validation?

On 30 May 2012 11:22, Vladimir Kostyukov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug about
> it  https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can read
> current
> thread: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068



--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Live Security Virtual Conference
Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and
threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions
will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware
threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Loading...