Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
You are right. Its just a normal validation with "values from" and "existing values only" tag. It the first message of this thread, I described the situations when current implantation doesn't work correctly (the same situation described in bug), So, I was working on patch, which a) solves this problem b) add "existing values only" to "text with autocomplete". Actually, I am going to make some changes in this patch and provide it again. On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Stephan Gambke wrote: > I read the bug and the thread. I still do not understand what > "one-to-many" validation means. What do you want to validate against > what? What is the "one", what is the "many"? How would it be different > from normal validation? > > On 30 May 2012 11:22, Vladimir Kostyukov > wrote: > > I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug > about > > it https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can > read > > current > > thread: > http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068 > -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
I read the bug and the thread. I still do not understand what "one-to-many" validation means. What do you want to validate against what? What is the "one", what is the "many"? How would it be different from normal validation? On 30 May 2012 11:22, Vladimir Kostyukov wrote: > I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug about > it https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can read > current > thread: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068 -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Stephan! I guess, its about SematicForms. You can read this thread. Here is bug about it https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976. Also you can read current thread: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/quot-one-to-many-quot-validation-td678004.html#a1572068 On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 4:04 PM, Stephan Gambke wrote: > Hi Vladimir. > > On 30 May 2012 10:48, Vladimir Kostyukov > wrote: > > Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed > > before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch > > (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it? > > Is this really about SemanticFormsInputs? Or about SemanticForms? And > could you explain what you mean by "one-to-many" validation? I do not > understand it. > > Cheers, > Stephan > > (Sorry for sending this twice. Forgot the list.) > -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Vladimir. On 30 May 2012 10:48, Vladimir Kostyukov wrote: > Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed > before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch > (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it? Is this really about SemanticFormsInputs? Or about SemanticForms? And could you explain what you mean by "one-to-many" validation? I do not understand it. Cheers, Stephan (Sorry for sending this twice. Forgot the list.) -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ ___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi everyone! Are SFI stil has problem with "one-to-many" validation, that we discussed before in this thread? I am planing to make same changes in my patch (regarding notes before) and submit it again. What do you think about it? On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM, badon wrote: > Here's a fresh report for this enhancement: > > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976 > > -- > View this message in context: > http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1572068.html > Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > -- > Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 > Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for > developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it > provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. > Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure > ___ > Semediawiki-devel mailing list > Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel > -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov -- Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Here's a fresh report for this enhancement: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32976 -- View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1572068.html Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Learn Windows Azure Live! Tuesday, Dec 13, 2011 Microsoft is holding a special Learn Windows Azure training event for developers. It will provide a great way to learn Windows Azure and what it provides. You can attend the event by watching it streamed LIVE online. Learn more at http://p.sf.net/sfu/ms-windowsazure ___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Vlad, The "text with autocomplete" and "textarea with autocomplete" input types both allow multiple values. If you're going to change the code to support it, please note the "delimiter" parameter - by default the delimiter is a comma, but it can be manually set to be a semicolon, newline, etc. instead. Yes, a blank value should be accepted - just like the dropdown input lets the user choose a blank value in addition to all the pre-specified values (unless the field is mandatory). -Yaron On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 3:28 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov < vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yaron, > > Sorry for delay. > > Regarding fields with multiple values. You are right, its big potential > problem. But I can try to implement it support. Which fields can has > multiple values? > > Regarding mandatory fields. From my point of view this is > correct behavioral. Mandatory - means "required field". Right? Then just in > case: our cobobox is not required (not mandatory) and it has "existing > values only" tag. How we should interpret empty field? Empty string - is > not existing value from category for example. > > Thanks for reply, I am going to thing about fields with multiple values. > > On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, badon wrote: > >> Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed: >> >> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088 >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1371217.html >> Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> -- >> Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization >> This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point >> of >> discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging >> model >> of a cloud services business. Read Now! >> http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ >> ___ >> Semediawiki-devel mailing list >> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > Vladimir Kostyukov > > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
I agree with Yaron. The "mandatory" parameter should have a limited meaning: something must be entered. The "existing values only" parameter should not require that something be entered. Instead, it only requires that IF something is entered, it must be an existing value. -- View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1379149.html Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ ___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Yaron, Sorry for delay. Regarding fields with multiple values. You are right, its big potential problem. But I can try to implement it support. Which fields can has multiple values? Regarding mandatory fields. From my point of view this is correct behavioral. Mandatory - means "required field". Right? Then just in case: our cobobox is not required (not mandatory) and it has "existing values only" tag. How we should interpret empty field? Empty string - is not existing value from category for example. Thanks for reply, I am going to thing about fields with multiple values. On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 1:47 PM, badon wrote: > Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed: > > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088 > > -- > View this message in context: > http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1371217.html > Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > -- > Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization > This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point > of > discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging > model > of a cloud services business. Read Now! > http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ > ___ > Semediawiki-devel mailing list > Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel > -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Here is the bug report for the issue being discussed: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26088 -- View this message in context: http://wikimedia.7.n6.nabble.com/one-to-many-validation-tp678004p1371217.html Sent from the Semantic Mediawiki - Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/ ___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Vladimir,
Thanks - responses below.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 11:02 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <
vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Yaron,
>
> Regarding yours questions.
>
> - Yes, I've added this feature only for "text with autocomplete" and for
> "combobox". The reason of it very simple: I didn't need this functionality
> for "textarea". Actually, It seems to me, that we can very easily add this
> feature to "textarea" input.
>
Okay. Yes - it does, indeed, seem like that would be easy to do.
>
> - You are right. It works only for single-value inputs now.
>
Okay. This is potentially a big problem, because it means that any input
that held multiple values would automatically get rejected - if the allowed
values were, say, "A", "B" and "C", and the user entered "A, B", the code
would compare that to the three allowed values, see that it wasn't equal to
any of them, and reject the value. Is there any way this can be fixed? It
would require some more Javascript hacking, but I think it would definitely
be worth it.
>
> - Yes. Field should be declared as "mandatory". I've decided to implement
> following case:
>
> {{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
> category=Category|*existing values only*|*mandatory*}}}
>
> Will be validated for "one-to-many".
>
> {{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
> category=Category|*mandatory*}}}
>
> Will be validated for "non-blank".
>
> {{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
> category=Category}}}
>
> Won't be validated.
>
Well, that seems strange - "mandatory" and "existing values only" are two
different restrictions, and either one could theoretically be used without
the other. Is there any way these could be separated?
Thanks,
Yaron
>
> Thanks for feedback. If its needed I can make some changes in my patch.
> Please, keep me update.
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Yaron Koren wrote:
>
>> Hi Vladimir,
>>
>> Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked
>> through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few
>> questions:
>>
>> - You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input
>> type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that,
>> or you just didn't need it for textareas?
>>
>> - Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it
>> won't.
>>
>> - It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is
>> declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose?
>>
>> -Yaron
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <
>> vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Yaron,
>>>
>>> Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update
>>> status?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
>>>
Hi Vladimir,
Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which
has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very
interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone
else does first.
-Yaron
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <
vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
> got any feedback.
>
> I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
> Semantic Forms (see attached).
>
> Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
> support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).
>
> Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
> autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
> behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
> clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
> phase.
>
> Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
> we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
> implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
> incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
> "change" event of jQuery).
>
> In current patch version there is not special message for "non
> existing value". I am using "blank field" message.
>
> I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
> think about it?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Vladimir Kostyukov
>
>
> --
> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
> ___
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Yaron,
Regarding yours questions.
- Yes, I've added this feature only for "text with autocomplete" and for
"combobox". The reason of it very simple: I didn't need this functionality
for "textarea". Actually, It seems to me, that we can very easily add this
feature to "textarea" input.
- You are right. It works only for single-value inputs now.
- Yes. Field should be declared as "mandatory". I've decided to implement
following case:
{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
category=Category|*existing values only*|*mandatory*}}}
Will be validated for "one-to-many".
{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
category=Category|*mandatory*}}}
Will be validated for "non-blank".
{{{field|FieldName|input type=text with autocomplete|values from
category=Category}}}
Won't be validated.
Thanks for feedback. If its needed I can make some changes in my patch.
Please, keep me update.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Yaron Koren wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked
> through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few
> questions:
>
> - You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input
> type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that,
> or you just didn't need it for textareas?
>
> - Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it
> won't.
>
> - It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is
> declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose?
>
> -Yaron
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov <
> vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Yaron,
>>
>> Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update
>> status?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Vladimir,
>>>
>>> Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has
>>> restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very
>>> interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone
>>> else does first.
>>>
>>> -Yaron
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov <
>>> vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't
got any feedback.
I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in
Semantic Forms (see attached).
Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not
support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case).
Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with
autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed
behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not
clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting
phase.
Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance:
we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current
implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter
incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see
"change" event of jQuery).
In current patch version there is not special message for "non
existing value". I am using "blank field" message.
I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do
think about it?
--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov
--
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>> Vladimir Kostyukov
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com
>
--
Thanks,
Vladimir Kostyukov
--
Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization
This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of
discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model
of a cloud services business. Read Now!
http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/___
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Vladimir, Sorry again about the delay, and thanks for the reminder. I just looked through your patch, and it looks like quite a useful feature. I have a few questions: - You added this capability in for the "text with autocomplete" input type, but not for "textarea with autocomplete". Is there a reason for that, or you just didn't need it for textareas? - Will this work for inputs that allow multiple values? It seems like it won't. - It appears that this validation will only kick in if the field is declared as "mandatory". Is that true, and if so, is it on purpose? -Yaron On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Vladimir Kostyukov < vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Yaron, > > Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update > status? > > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: > >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has >> restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very >> interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone >> else does first. >> >> -Yaron >> >> On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov < >> vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't >>> got any feedback. >>> >>> I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in >>> Semantic Forms (see attached). >>> >>> Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not >>> support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case). >>> >>> Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with >>> autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed >>> behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not >>> clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting >>> phase. >>> >>> Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance: >>> we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current >>> implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter >>> incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see >>> "change" event of jQuery). >>> >>> In current patch version there is not special message for "non >>> existing value". I am using "blank field" message. >>> >>> I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do >>> think about it? >>> >>> -- >>> Thanks, >>> Vladimir Kostyukov >>> >>> >>> -- >>> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure >>> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, >>> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this >>> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >>> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d >>> ___ >>> Semediawiki-devel mailing list >>> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com >> > > > > -- > Thanks, > Vladimir Kostyukov > > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Yaron, Have you looked into my patch about validation. Could you please update status? On Wed, Nov 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM, Yaron Koren wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has > restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very > interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone > else does first. > > -Yaron > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov < > vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't >> got any feedback. >> >> I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in >> Semantic Forms (see attached). >> >> Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not >> support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case). >> >> Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with >> autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed >> behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not >> clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting >> phase. >> >> Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance: >> we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current >> implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter >> incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see >> "change" event of jQuery). >> >> In current patch version there is not special message for "non >> existing value". I am using "blank field" message. >> >> I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do >> think about it? >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Vladimir Kostyukov >> >> >> -- >> All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure >> contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, >> security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this >> data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d >> ___ >> Semediawiki-devel mailing list >> Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel >> >> > > > -- > WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com > -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov -- Cloud Services Checklist: Pricing and Packaging Optimization This white paper is intended to serve as a reference, checklist and point of discussion for anyone considering optimizing the pricing and packaging model of a cloud services business. Read Now! http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51491232/___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
Re: [SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi Vladimir, Sorry about the delay - we've had the Thanksgiving break here, which has restricted my internet time significantly. This patch sounds very interesting, and I plan to look at it at some point soon, unless someone else does first. -Yaron On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Vladimir Kostyukov < vladimir.kostu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't > got any feedback. > > I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in > Semantic Forms (see attached). > > Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not > support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case). > > Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with > autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed > behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not > clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting > phase. > > Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance: > we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current > implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter > incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see > "change" event of jQuery). > > In current patch version there is not special message for "non > existing value". I am using "blank field" message. > > I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do > think about it? > > -- > Thanks, > Vladimir Kostyukov > > > -- > All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure > contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, > security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this > data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d > ___ > Semediawiki-devel mailing list > Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel > > -- WikiWorks · MediaWiki Consulting · http://wikiworks.com -- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
[SMW-devel] "one-to-many" validation
Hi All! I've resent my mail about validation patch, because I haven't got any feedback. I've just successfully implemented correct validation feature in Semantic Forms (see attached). Actually, when I've started use SMW I was surprised that it is not support any validation mechanism (I mean one-to-many case). Now, we can use "existing values only" property for "text with autocomplete input" and with "combobox" elements. But I've changed behavior of validation mechanism. Now incorrect fields are not clearing when user input incorrect data. It is checking on submitting phase. Also my patch fixed bug with fields which edited last. For instance: we can enable "existing values only" for combobox in current implementation and it will not work for fields, in which we enter incorrect data and than click submit (without changing focus) (see "change" event of jQuery). In current patch version there is not special message for "non existing value". I am using "blank field" message. I use my patch in our corporate project and it works fine. What do think about it? -- Thanks, Vladimir Kostyukov validation.patch Description: Binary data -- All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure contains a definitive record of customers, application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d___ Semediawiki-devel mailing list Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
