I need to pass any value (null or not null) to a model without
validation. So I cannot call validate() but only convertInput() (as
you can see for example in DropDownChoice). To do this inside a
behavior class convertInput() method must be public (or I need to hack
this using a reflection, but this
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:32 PM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
> > validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
> > illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
> > that is being submitted or the
Do your use case needs to convert a null input? If the input is differs from
null FormComponent#validate will be just fine.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Daniel Stoch
> wrote:
>
> >
> > My post was only a proposal, because it is not pos
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
>
> My post was only a proposal, because it is not possible to easy extend
> AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior because onEvent() is final. I want
> to avoid copy/paste code with only a little change. And I think this
> change is very useful. B
It can be called with null value when you set DropDownChoice.setNullValid(true).
You don't want to understand that this is a good behavior in many
cases, not a bug. But ok it is your framework, so you decide. But
maybe other Wicket commiters have a different feeling about it?
--
Daniel
On Fri, Fe
that looks like a bug to me. the reason it has gone unnoticed for so
long is that someone would have to hack html to cause it. onchange
only fires in browsers when there is a value selected, so that code
would not typically be called with a null, and thus no need to check
required.
-igor
On Fri,
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
> illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
> that is being submitted or the entire form. components decide whether
> or not a user can push
>> Maybe I should explain one of use-cases. Let's say we have a form to
>> enter RSS feed information. There are two TextFields:
>> - url for RSS feed (urlModel)
>> - custom RSS feed name (nameModel).
>> Both are required and both have OnChangeBehavior attached. When user
>> enter url for RSS the n
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
>> illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
>> that is being submitted or the en
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
> illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
> that is being submitted or the entire form. components decide whether
> or not a user can push
Also conditional validation might do it:
https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/conditional-validation.html
2011/2/17 Igor Vaynberg :
> validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
> illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
> that is being submitted
validation is there to make sure the user of the webapp cannot push an
illegal value into a model. it doesnt matter if its just the component
that is being submitted or the entire form. components decide whether
or not a user can push null in by using their required flag. you want
to push null, don
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 10:01 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> if you want to push a null value into a component you marked required
> then dont mark it as required.
No, because then I must have my own "customrequired" flags instead of
using the core mechanism. I think this is wrong way.
There is a wro
if you want to push a null value into a component you marked required
then dont mark it as required. if you have inter-dependent validation
use a formvalidator or override form's onsubmit.
-igor
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
> There is a situation when the AjaxFormCompone
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Pedro Santos wrote:
> Override onError still makes sense for me, if the form component is
> required, why to hide the message?
Because I don't want to show such error message when user clears
(update) this required field but only when he press Submit. And
Feedback
Override onError still makes sense for me, if the form component is
required, why to hide the message? If there is some special message
reporting rule, it can be coded inside onError also.
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 5:26 PM, Daniel Stoch wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Pedro Santos wrote:
On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Pedro Santos wrote:
> I Daniel, how alwaysUpdateModel differs from updateModel?
You mean "from getUpdateModel()"? isAlwaysUpdateModel() is called only
when component is invalid, but getUpdateModel() in both cases (for
valid and invalid).
> If you have an
> requir
I Daniel, how alwaysUpdateModel differs from updateModel? If you have an
required form component that support some clean up logic, it can be coded
inside AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior#onError, and if you need an AJAX
behavior that don't validate the form component, you can
use AjaxEventBehavior
There is a situation when the AjaxFormComponentUpdatingBehavior
deafult functionality fails. When we want to attach this behavior (or
OnChangeAjaxBehavior) to reflect changes inside a Model of
FormComponent which is marked as REQUIRED event if user clears
component input. In such situation AjaxForm
19 matches
Mail list logo
