The specific case I've got in mind is as follows: an AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior("onchange") is added to a TextField in a form. The behavior verifies the text for certain conditions (either the model object or the form component model, doesn't matter), based on which it might display a message (or hide it, if it has already been shown).
The problem is, there are also validators added to the TextField. One of the possible (and likely) scenarios consists of the user typing in, first, a value that causes the message to be displayed by the AJAX request. If, then, he/she types in a value that doesn't pass validation, the message should disappear, but it does not.
Apparently, either the onUpdate() method for the AJAX behavior is not called at all, or I am failing in my attempts to insert a check for non-validated entries (I have tried to test for both null values and empty strings, to no avail; I have no idea what exactly Wicket's validators do to models when data is invalid).
I am wondering if someone who actually understands validators (or AJAX, actually) has any ideas on where the problem could be.
I can post edit and post code if someone tells me this is not a general issue tying validators and AJAX, but most likely a programming mistake. I still believe the former and thus I'll refrain from posting code sections, in order to keep the discussion on an API/theoretical frame.
Thanks.
When using an AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior, if any of the IValidators fail their validation, onError() will be called instead of onUpdate(). Wicket will effectively prevent invalid user input from reaching the IModels in your components, so the component's ModelObject will not be changed at all. The invalid input will probably remain available by means of getInput()/getConvertedInput() (not sure if it will in an AJAX scenario, it sure is in a traditional form submission).
However, take into account that IFormValidators are not executed when using this mechanism. If you've got any, you might be interested in overriding getUpdateModel() so that AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior will not bring maybe-invalid user input into your IModels, and set modelobjects manually when you're certain user input is valid.
Regarding your specific case, you could perform all the required logic in onError() (or rely on Models that will grab data from somewhere else), and just add the components that need refreshing to the AjaxRequestTarget. This is probably what's missing in your scenario.
Related
Multiple required fields from bulk edit form are not displayed. The labels for that fields appear on form but the textboxes don't appear. I think this happens because we have scripts that run for that fields. I tried to edit customizations.xml and to put BehaviorInBulkEditForm = "Enabled" but it is not working. Is there another way to enable javascript?
As per the Form XML schema, the BehaviorInBulkEditForm attribute goes on the <event> element, careful you're not putting it somewhere else.
The valid values, as per Microsoft KB 949941, are:
Enabled
If you use this value, the field is enabled. Additionally, the code for the event is run when the event is called.
Disabled
If you use this value, the field is disabled.
EnabledButNoRender
If you use this value, the field is enabled. However, the code for the event is not run when the event is called.
I would recommend to stay away from unsupported customizations which will eventually break in future updates.
If it’s worth, then move all the logic to post-update or pre-update plugins which is fail proof server side implementation rather than client side js route.
I know the partial submit is used in icefaces 1.x, singlesubmit in icefaces 2.x and the tag in icefaces 3.x.
May someone tell me what is the substantial difference between them?
thanks.
Both partialSubmit and singleSubmit does the same thing. But in different ways.
Here is a typical form scenario:
user sees a form and starts interacting. Those forms have some fields. Some of those fields are required and are necessary to process the form. Other fields are optional.
When using partialSubmit, when a user leaves a field(onblur), iceface internally makes all other fields as non required so that the overall form can be submitted. Now since all other fields are optional and only the present field that you onblurred was required, icefaces can process the form. So it does all the validation checks and changes other elements that might have been affected and renders the whole page again with new changes. But here is the thing. The other fields that were deliberately made optional by icefaces, they also have their own validation mechnanisms. So when the form is processed, those field will show errors that they are not filled, or the password field cannot be null and all that. But since the user has not engaged other fields of the form, these errors should not be triggerred. This was the drawback of partialSubmit.
In singleSubmtit, they corrected this. In here, your field is taken and is sepately validated without affecting other fields or triggering their errors.
Hope you have understood this. If not, this link will help
www.icesoft.org/wiki/display/ice/single+submit
http://www.icesoft.org/wiki/display/ICE/Using+Single+Submit
The SingleSubmit tag is a replacement by PartialSubmit, according to ICESoft information.
Cheers!
I'm trying to find a good way to do field validation in a WebObjects app. If I have a text field and I tie a number formatter to it, it seems that the default behavior is to parse out the number IF the user enters in a valid number, or, if the user enters an invalid number, it seems to just ignore the value entered by the user. I can't do the validation in a save method or an action method because WO will have already ignored the non-number input by the time it reaches the action method. Is there a standard/recommended way, in a WebObjects app, of validating user input such that the user can be alerted of invalid input, rather than just ignoring the invalid input?
This page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/WebObjects/EOF/Using_EOF/Validation claims that WO and EOF have "an incredible array of validation mechanisms" and even hints that there is a built-in way to prevent the user from entering inappropriate data, but I haven't been able to find any documentation or examples of how to do that (if there is, in fact, a built-in way). Coming up with a custom javascript validator to prevent inappropriate data seems like it would be a nightmare - finding a way to make the JS recognize and handle all of the same edge cases that the backend formatters/parsers handle. It would be nice if WO really did have a built-in way to propagate the formatter edge cases over to JS validation.
The above link also says there is a validationFailedWithException method in WOComponent that gets called "when an EO or formatter failed validation during an assignment", but how can I make a formatter fail validation in the non-number example case above? I've tried having the formatter throw an exception in the parse method if a non-number is entered, but that exception doesn't get passed to the validationFailedWithException method. Does anyone know how I can trigger an exception in a formatter that will trigger a call to validationFailedWithException()? And is that even the best/recommended way? Does anyone know of a better way?
I'm pretty sure, that validationFailedWithException is getting called for every formatting error. You should receive there an NSValidationException that wraps a ParseException. The method is usually called on the component containing the binding. It may get skipped on caret (^) bindings.
All the standard number formatter already throw a ParseException (see Format.parse(String)).
The validation handling in WebObjects can get quite complex, it really depends on your needs. But it was designed without JavaScript or Ajax in mind. Newer approaches in Wonder may incorporate the client side, but I have no experience with it.
The normal validation sequence is:
if needed convert the input into the target type with a formatter
call a validateAttributeName method on the target object, where AttributeName is the attribute name to receive the value
When something fails in this sequence validationFailedWithException is called.
While saving an enterprise object "validateFor..." is called on the objects. An exception at this point has to be caught in your action method.
So you have two points to handle validation errors. The "syntactical" errors have to be handled in validationFailedWithException. After this point you have valid inputs. You may manually further check those or greater object structures in your action method or in validateFor... (e.g. validateForSave).
Okey, this might seem a bit strange question so I will explain.
Do I really need to create a postback that explains what is wrong with form if it's not validated if I also use JS for it?
I am of course validating user input and I use somewhat "general" approach. For instance if something is not validated it will just show "Some error occurred, check your input bla bla..". I am not creating postback for every input so that it will shot "Your username is suppose to be at least 3 characters long etc.." and I don't do this because JS is doing that on the fly.
My server-side validation only is like a guard against stupid/wrong entries where name is empty or something along that, rest is up to jQuery. Form will always be valid if client is running JS. I am doing it to save my time.
My question is - is it a bad idea? I just don't see why because everyone is running JS anyway and my server is not allowing bad/invalid entries to be put in DB even with JS off.
I don't think that's a bad idea, data validation can be client side. If something goes wrong, i just throw a generic error.
I only validate server side the business rules
A simple question: I have a Model-View-Controller setup, with Models accessing a SQL database. In which part should I sanitize/check for malformed incoming data?
It's important to keep error handling as low as possible in the stack, but supplemental in other parts. If you keep the sanitizing in the controller, you could break the model by swapping out the controller with a looser one, but you can never break the model by being strict higher up in the stack. Keep the sanitizing low in the stack for consistency, and high in the stack for user feedback.
I'd say the Controller should sanitize input.
The model should at most decline to store invalid data.
I would say it is the responsibility of the controller to validate the input and make sure the data is valid before passing on the data to the model.
If invalid data is found, the controller should redirect back to the view and display the relevant error messages.
Having validation in the view only could be bypassed if the user doesn't have javascript enabled or posts to the url directly, however some validation in the view is better from a user experience point of view since the user does not need to wait for a return from the server in a web application.
The model will validate business logic rules, i.e. password length requirements, if a user is allowed to perform an action or not.
The model should obviously also make sure interaction with the database is done in a safe way so that SQL Injection is not possible.
The controller should handle relaying business logic errors back to the view, but can also do some basic sanity checks, i.e. a field is not empty.
I would say output sanitization should also go in the Controller before being passed to the View.
I use two levels of checking. My controller will check what is supposed to be a date is a date, an int an int and so forth. Basically ensuring they can be used to set the values on my objects.
Then my domain has validation for things such as valid values and other business rules. These are ALWAYS checked before saving or interacting with an edited object.
All errors from either level get returned to the user so they can take remedial action as necessary.
I tend to:
Put syntactic validation in the view ("this field is numeric", "that field is a date"). This is often very easy or even implicit in your choice of view design (eg: using a date picker for date fields).
Put semantic violation in a separate validator class ("this date field has to be after that date field", "this can be null if that is greater than zero") and call the validator from the controller, passing errors back to the view for display.
(for my own pseudo-correct definitions of syntax and semantics...)