hi jesaja,
> Suppose I have phone numbers like in the example schema:
>
> http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/colander/en/latest/basics.html#defining-a-colander-schema
...
> How would I best go about validating custom fields, like for example:
> {
> 'phones':[{'location':'home', 'number':'555-1212', 'type':'landline'},
> {'provider':'telekom', 'number':'555-8989'},],
> }
from my experience you should define all fields that are possible and set them
to be nullable::
class Phone(colander.MappingSchema):
# ...
type = colander.SchemaNode(
colander.String(),
widget = deform.widget.HiddenWidget(),
missing = colander.null,
)
provider = colander.SchemaNode(
colander.String(),
missing = colander.null,
)
this seems cumbersome in some cases but from my experience its worth doing that
cause otherwise you will have a lot of unexpected workarounds. having an - even
huge - schema is clear and bulletproof. if you work in this pattern the first
obvious advantage (beside security) is having little view-code for forms.
> I want the user to be able to add arbitrary fields to the phone numbers.
>
> At the moment, I solved it like this (using a sequence of "fieldname",
> "value" pairs):
also possible, but the structure is not as nice (like you say below) and you
cannot distinguish the type of each ``fieldname``.
unless you know this is all the same kind of validation and you do not care
about the payload structure i would not do that.
> Is this possible, and how would you validate data like this with
> Colander?
you can validate each field on its own as usual::
type = colander.SchemaNode(
colander.String(),
widget = deform.widget.HiddenWidget(),
validator = colander.Length(min=1, max=255),
missing = colander.null,
)
if you need a cross-validation, like "i need B validated in relation to A" use
a ``Validator`` on the ``Schema``
https://github.com/Pylons/colander/issues/74
If you need a dynamic value during validation see this example at
``deferred_date_validator``:
http://docs.pylonsproject.org/projects/colander/en/latest/binding.html
> I could just choose to not validate the fields, but I would
> prefer if I could still make sure that the value for a dynamic field
> is a string etc.
NO!
please: do not think about not validating them!!!11! ;)
cheers, andi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en.
