Skip Menu |
 

Preferred bug tracker

Please visit the preferred bug tracker to report your issue.

This queue is for tickets about the Data-Verifier CPAN distribution.

Report information
The Basics
Id: 52592
Status: resolved
Priority: 0/
Queue: Data-Verifier

People
Owner: Nobody in particular
Requestors: RSAVAGE [...] cpan.org
Cc:
AdminCc:

Bug Information
Severity: Important
Broken in: (no value)
Fixed in: (no value)



Subject: Doc amendments
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 374b
Hi Folks Great module. Thanx. In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), to get the results. Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field names whose values are valid, not a hashref. Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. TIA.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 865b
On Tue Dec 08 21:55:29 2009, RSAVAGE wrote: Show quoted text
> Hi Folks > > Great module. Thanx. > > In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), > to get the results. > > Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field > names whose values are valid, not a hashref. > > Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not > contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. > > TIA.
Thanks for the ticket! The docs will be updated shortly in the next release, but I'm not sure what you mean by your last report. I put a quick test at http://github.com/gphat/data-verifier/blob/master/t/10-toomany.t Is this what you are talking about? If so, the extra keys simply are ignored and are not part of the available validation profile. I just want to clarify before clarifying any docs :) Thanks, -J
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:14:20 +1100
To: bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From: Ron Savage <ron [...] savage.net.au>
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 1.1k
Hi On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 23:16 -0500, J. Shirley via RT wrote: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=52592 > > > On Tue Dec 08 21:55:29 2009, RSAVAGE wrote:
> > Hi Folks > > > > Great module. Thanx. > > > > In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), > > to get the results. > > > > Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field > > names whose values are valid, not a hashref. > > > > Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not > > contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. > > > > TIA.
> > Thanks for the ticket! > > The docs will be updated shortly in the next release, but I'm not sure > what you mean by your last report. > > I put a quick test at > http://github.com/gphat/data-verifier/blob/master/t/10-toomany.t > > Is this what you are talking about? If so, the extra keys simply are > ignored and are not part of the available validation profile. > > I just want to clarify before clarifying any docs :)
It was my first use of the module, and it looks like I got confused, so just ignore that part of my missive. -- Ron Savage ron@savage.net.au http://savage.net.au/index.html
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:01:01 +0000
To: bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From: ron [...] savage.net.au
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 455b
Hi Folks Also, it's be good if, under the discussion of dependencies, clarification was provided for cases such as: phone_1 => { dependent => {phone_number_type_id_1 => {required => 1} }, required => 0, type => 'Str', }, phone_number_type_id_1 => { required => 0, type => 'Int', }, Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or should I just not put the later spec in at all? I guess the 2nd case is the case.
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 443b
On Wed Dec 09 20:01:18 2009, ron@savage.net.au wrote: Show quoted text
> Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or > should I just not put the later spec in at all? > > I guess the 2nd case is the case.
You should NOT put in the latter. The dependent profile is - by itself - the definition of the dependent field. Having it in both places would do all sorts of wonky things. I'll try and write something to clarify that.
Subject: Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:13:25 +0000
To: bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From: ron [...] savage.net.au
Download (untitled) / with headers
text/plain 823b
Hi Cory Quoting "Cory Watson via RT" <bug-Data-Verifier@rt.cpan.org>: Show quoted text
> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=52592 > > > On Wed Dec 09 20:01:18 2009, ron@savage.net.au wrote:
>> Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or >> should I just not put the later spec in at all? >> >> I guess the 2nd case is the case.
> > You should NOT put in the latter. The dependent profile is - by > itself - the definition of the > dependent field. Having it in both places would do all sorts of > wonky things. > > I'll try and write something to clarify that.
Excellent. Thanx. I've just now finished the conversion from Data::FormValidator to Data::Verifier, and things are going beautifully. The real bugbear with D::FV was the convoluted process involved, making it hard to debug.
Forgot to close this...


This service is sponsored and maintained by Best Practical Solutions and runs on Perl.org infrastructure.

Please report any issues with rt.cpan.org to rt-cpan-admin@bestpractical.com.