You shouldn't use "visible-required" as the method name. Stick with a
valid JavaScript identifier (probably should have mentioned that).
As long as you do that, you can use addMethod to alias existing
methods with other default messages. On the other hand, addClassRules
doesn't help at all with messages.
Jörn
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Dr Stevens <daverstev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'm using the validate plugin to validate ASP.NET webforms on the
> client (I'd prefer to not use webforms, but for now I'm stuck with
> it). Because I'm using webforms, I'm trying to get around using the
> clientID of server controls. The metadata plugin works great, but I'd
> prefer to not use it because it's gonna blow up my markup.
>
> Is there any way to utilize jQuery.validator.addClassRules to add
> custom messages to a rule? Take the following for instance:
>
> jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value,
> element) {
> return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element);
> }, "This is required when visible");
>
> jQuery.validator.addClassRules("fool", {
> visible-required: true,
> lettersonly: true,
> messages: {
> visible-required: "My specific field must is required",
> lettersonly: "Letters only fool!"
> }
> });
>
> On a slightly related note, is there any overhead associated with
> adding custom validation methods specific to some field only to
> override the default message? Take the following:
>
> jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required", function(value,
> element) {
> return $(element).is(":hidden") || !this.optional(element);
> }, "This is required when visible");
>
> jQuery.validator.addMethod("visible-required-fool",
> jQuery.validator.methods.visible - required,
> "My specific field is required");
>
> I saw your talk at the conference last weekend btw. Thanks
>
