Cleaning up ... I've raised
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-2122 for
this idea.

On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 at 20:43, Andi Huber <[email protected]> wrote:

> You can solve this by adding a boolean parameter to the action, not as
> pretty as a yellobackground advise, but at least works with what we already
> have:
>
> import org.apache.isis.applib.annotation.Action;
> import org.apache.isis.applib.annotation.Mixin;
> import org.apache.isis.applib.annotation.ParameterLayout;
>
> import lombok.RequiredArgsConstructor;
>
> @Mixin @RequiredArgsConstructor
> public class SimpleObject_advice {
>
>     private final SimpleObject holder;
>
>     @Action
>     public SimpleObject $$(
>             @ParameterLayout(named="input") String input,
>             @ParameterLayout(named="do it anyway") boolean doItAnyway) {
>
>         // some action here
>         return holder;
>     }
>
>     public String validate$$(String input, boolean doItAnyway) {
>         if(doItAnyway) {
>             return null;
>         }
>         return "not good, here's my advice to you ...";
>     }
> }
>
> Cheers, Andi
>
> On 2018/11/23 15:46:26, Sander Ginn <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > We’ve had a number of support requests relating to new users of our
> application that are not yet fully familiar with their business process.
> > We do not wish to invalidate input as many business rules are not
> clearly defined in a ‘correct/incorrect’ fashion, with many exceptions and
> special cases.
> >
> > As a middle ground, I would like to propose an extension of the
> metamodel with a support method similar to validateXxx(), which renders the
> familiar dialog and warning message underneath the input field with another
> colour (yellow, probably) but does not block the user from completing the
> action.
> >
> > Does anyone else consider this to be a useful addition, and if so, what
> would be a good method prefix? My first thought was warnXxx(), but that
> does not make a lot of sense syntactically; after all, we aren’t warning
> the action in question (as opposed to validate/hide/disableXxx()) but the
> user instead.
> >
> > Best
> > Sander Ginn
>

Reply via email to