I try to validate a nested domain class instance on a command object.
Having the following command object
package demo
import grails.databinding.BindingFormat
class SaveEventCommand {
#BindingFormat('yyyy-MM-dd')
Date date
Refreshment refreshment
static constraints = {
date validator: { date -> date > new Date() + 3}
refreshment nullable: true
}
}
And having the following domain class with its own constraints
package demo
class Refreshment {
String food
String drink
Integer quantity
static constraints = {
food inList: ['food1', 'food2', 'food3']
drink nullable: true, inList: ['drink1', 'drink2', 'drink3']
quantity: min: 1
}
}
I need when refreshment is not nullable the command object validates the date property and check the corresponding restrictions in refreshment instance
For now try with this code in the controller:
def save(SaveEventCommand command) {
if (command.hasErrors() || !command.refreshment.validate()) {
respond ([errors: command.errors], view: 'create')
return
}
// Store logic goes here
}
Here through !command.refreshment.validate() I try to validate the refresh instance but I get the result that there are no errors, even when passing data that is not correct.
Thank you any guide and thank you for your time
I typically just include some code that will use a custom validator to kick off validation for any property that is composed of another command object. For example:
thePropertyInQuestion(nullable: true, validator: {val, obj, err ->
if (val == null) return
if (!val.validate()) {
val.errors.allErrors.each { e ->
err.rejectValue(
"thePropertyInQuestion.${e.arguments[0]}",
"${e.objectName}.${e.arguments[0]}.${e.code}",
e.arguments,
"${e.objectName}.${e.arguments[0]}.${e.code}"
)
}
}
})
This way it's pretty clear that I want validation to occur. Plus it moves all the errors up into the root errors collection which makes things super easy for me.
Two things I could think of:
Implement grails.validation.Validateable on your command object
What happens when you provide an invalid date? Can you see errors while validating?
Related
I'm having a validation issue very similar to what is described here
https://schneide.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/gorm-gotchas-validation-and-hasmany/
but with an important difference that I don't have (or want) a List<Element> elements field in my domain. My code is
class Location {
static hasMany = [pocs: LocationPoc]
Integer id
String address
String city
State state
String zip
...
static mapping = {
...
}
static constraints = {
def regEx = new RegEx()
address blank: true, nullable: true, matches: regEx.VALID_ADDRESS_REGEX
city blank: true, nullable: true
state blank: true, nullable: true
zip blank: true, nullable: true
...
}
}
however, if I save/update a location with a bunk POC (point of contact), I get some wild errors. I would like to validate the POC's when I save/update a location, but I'm not exactly sure how. I've tried a few variations of
pocs validator: {
obj -> obj?.pocs?.each {
if (!it.validate()) {
return false
}
}
return true
}
to no avail. Is this possbile without creating a new field on my domain, List<LocationPoc> pocs?
You're close. The issue is you need to target the property you want to validate instead of using the object reference. It should look like this:
pocs validator: { val, obj, err ->
val?.each {
if (!it.validate()) return false
}
}
Validation doesn't automatically cascade through hasMany associations. In order to get free validation, the other side of the relationship needs to belong to Location.
You didn't include your LocationPOC class, but if you modify
Location location
to
static belongsTo = [location: Location]
Then you will get cascading validation when you save your Location object.
If you can't set the belongsTo property on LocationPoc, and need to use the custom validator, the syntax is a bit different than the answer above.
pocs validator: {val, obj ->
val?.inject true, {acc,item -> acc && item.validate()}
}
the three arguement version of validate expects you to add errors to the errorCollection. https://grails.github.io/grails2-doc/2.5.6/ref/Constraints/validator.html
Plus using a return statement inside of .each doesn't work like the above example. It just exits the closure and starts the next iteration. The validator from the other answer was just returning val (the result of val.each is just val)
You need to spin through the entire collection looking for non valid options.
I'm using Constraints on my web forms and I've noticed that several forms have similar validations, for instance I have several types of form with a start date and an end date. In each case, I want to validate that the start date is before the end date. Here's the case class I'm creating from my form:
case class OrderSearchForm(orderId: Option[Int], startDate:Option[Long], endDate:Option[Long])
and my validation (Let's ignore the .get() for now):
def validateSearchDate = Constraint[OrderSearchForm]{
osf: OrderSearchForm => {
if (!osf.startDate.isEmpty && !osf.endDate.isEmpty && osf.startDate.get.compareTo(osf.endDate.get) > 0 )
Invalid("Begin Date is after End Date.")
else
Valid
}
}
Now, since I have lots of forms with a start date and an end date, I'd like to re-write my validation to work with all of the case classes representing these forms. I'm wondering whether the typeclass pattern can help me with this:
trait TwoDates[T] {
def twoDatesTuple(t: T): (Option[Long], Option[Long])
}
trait TwoDatesOSF extends TwoDates[OrderSearchForm] {
def twoDatesTuple(t: OrderSearchForm) = (t.startDate, t.endDate)
}
implicit object TwoDatesOSF extends trait TwoDatesOSF
def validateSearchDate = Constraint[TwoDates[_]] { t: TwoDates[_] => ... (as above)}
but applying does not work:
validateSearchDate(OrderSearchForm(None, None, None))
yields:
error: type mismatch; found : OrderSearchForm required:
TwoDates[_]
betweenDates(osf)
1) Can I write generic validations using typeclasses? If so, what am I doing wrong?
2) Can I write generic validations while AVOIDING using super-classes (i.e.
abstract class TwoDates(start: Option[Long], end:Option[Long])
case class OrderSearchForm(orderId: Option[String], startDate:Option[Long], endDate:Option[Long]) extends TwoDates(startDate, endDate)
which seems awkward once multiple validations are in play)
Thanks!
I think you can use structural types:
private type TwoDates = { def startDate: Option[Date]; def endDate: Option[Date] }
def validateTwoDates = Constraint[TwoDates] { osf: TwoDates =>
if (!osf.startDate.isEmpty &&
!osf.endDate.isEmpty &&
osf.startDate.get.compareTo(osf.endDate.get) > 0) {
Invalid("Begin Date is after End Date.")
} else Valid
}
case class Something(
startDate: Option[Date],
endDate: Option[Date],
name: String)
private val form = Form(mapping(
"startDate" -> optional(date),
"endDate" -> optional(date),
"name" -> text)
(Something.apply)(Something.unapply).verifying(validateTwoDates))
Using Orchard CMS, I am dealing with a record and a part proxy, but cannot figure out how to save it into the DB. In fact, I confess I don't even know how to get the items I'm trying to save into this paradigm. I was originally using enum's for choices:
MyEmum.cs:
public enum Choices { Choice1, Choice2, Choice3, Choice4 }
MyRecord.cs:
public virtual string MyProperty { get; set; }
MyPart.cs:
public IEnumerable<string> MyProperty
{
get
{
if (String.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(Record.MyProperty)) return new string[] { };
return Record
.MyProperty
.Split(new[] { '.' }, StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries)
.Select(r => r.Trim())
.Where(r => !String.IsNullOrEmpty(r));
}
set { Record.MyProperty = value == null ? null : String.Join(",", value); }
}
Now, in my service class, I tried something like:
public MyPart Create(MyPartRecord record)
{
MyPart part = Services.ContentManager.Create<MyPart>("My");
...
part.MyProperty = record.MyProperty; //getting error here
...
return part;
}
However, I am getting the following error: Cannot implicitly convert 'string' to System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<string>'
Essentially, I am trying to save choices from a checkboxlist (one or more selections) as a comma-separated list in the DB.
And this doesn't even get me over the problem of how do I use the enum. Any thoughts?
For some background:
I understand that the appropriate way to handle this relationship would be to create a separate table and use IList<MyEnum>. However, this is a simple list that I do not intend to manipulate with edits (in fact, no driver is used in this scenario as I handle this on the front-end with a controller and routes). I am just capturing data and redisplaying it in the Admin view for statistical/historical purposes. I may even consider getting rid of the Part (considering the following post: Bertrand's Blog Post.
It should be:
part.MyProperty = new[] {"foo", "bar"};
for example. The part's setter will store the value on the record's property as a comma-separated string, which will get persisted into the DB.
If you want to use enum values, you should use the Parse and ToString APIs that .NET provide on Enum.
I have a Spring Security User class which has a unique constraint for username and email. In a Command class I imported all constraints from this class with "importFrom User". All constraints work as expected EXCEPT the unique ones.
However when saving the User the unique constraints get validated and errors are shown. But it would be nice if they get validated BEFORE saving like all other constraints.
UPDATE
I added this to the controller:
user.errors.fieldErrors.each {
command.errors.rejectValue(it.getField(), it.getCode())
}
Seems like a dirty workaround, but it works.
Good question #Chris, and your solution is best since the goal of sharing constraints between domain classes and command objects is to avoid duplicating validation logic.
I'll just add that to avoid duplicating field errors and to handle nested field paths in domain objects, something like the following might be necessary.
def save(EntityCreateCommand cmd) {
def entity = new Entity(cmd.properties)
def someAssociation = new Something(cmd.properties)
entity.someAssociation = someAssociation
entity.validate()
entity.errors.fieldErrors.each {
def fieldName = it.field.split("\\.").last()
def flattenedCodes = cmd.errors.getFieldErrors(fieldName).codes.flatten()
if(cmd.hasProperty(fieldName) && (!flattenedCodes.contains(it.code))) {
cmd.errors.rejectValue(fieldName,
"entityCreateCommand.${fieldName}.${it.code}")
}
}
if(cmd.errors.hasErrors()) {
error handling stuff...
} else {
business stuff...
}
}
I had problems with unique constraint before, so I made a custom validator in my command object to test and see if it's unique:
Command Object:
class wateverCommand{
....
String username
static constraints = {
username validator:{value, command ->
if(value){
if(User.findByUsername(value){
return 'wateverCommand.username.unique'
}
}
}
}
}
within your messages.properties add a custom error message:
wateverCommand.username.unique The username is taken, please pick a new username
I agree the unique constraint doesn't always seem to import properly. Since I like to avoid clutter in the constraint body I like the one liner approach:
validator: {value, command -> (User.findByUsername(value) ? false : true ) }
Then in your message.properties it would be:
accountCommand.username.validator.error=That username already exists
I have a Grails domain object that looks like this:
class Product {
Boolean isDiscounted = false
Integer discountPercent = 0
static constraints = {
isDiscounted(nullable: false)
discountPercent(range:0..99)
}
I'd like to add a validator to discountPercent that will only validate if isDiscounted is true, something like this:
validator: { val, thisProduct ->
if (thisProduct.isDiscounted) {
// need to run the default validator here
thisProduct.discountPercent.validate() // not actual working code
} else {
thisProduct.discountPercent = null // reset discount percent
}
Does anyone know how I can do this?
This is more or less what you need (on the discountPercent field):
validator: { val, thisProduct ->
if (thisProduct.isDiscounted)
if (val < 0) {
return 'range.toosmall' //default code for this range constraint error
}
if (99 < val) {
return 'range.toobig' //default code for this range constraint error
} else {
return 'invalid.dependency'
}
You can't both have a special validator that relies on something else and have a special validator, as you can't run a single validator on a field (that I know of), only on single properties. But if you run a validation on this property, you'll depend on yourself and go into endless recursion. Therefore I added the range check manually. In your i18n files you can set up something like full.packet.path.FullClassName.invalid.dependency=Product not discounted.
Good luck!