In answer to my own question, it seems that you can basically do this: class Anything include DataMapper::Validations attr_accessor :testing validates_presence_of :testing end
a = Anything.new a.valid? # => false a.testing = "something" a.valid? # => true That's excellent. If I'm doing validations one way in one part of my app I'd rather not write almost, but not quite the same thing in another part of my app. Is this a published behaviour, or am I risking something breaking further down the line if I take advantage of this? Emmanuel, do you never need to validate something that isn't going into the database, but is still user input? ActiveModel::Validations was done like this for the same reasons. On 30/05/2011, at 18:38, Emmanuel Gomez wrote: > Hi, > > I've been looking through some of dm-validations, and it's clear that some > things could be simplified and tightened up by only supporting validation of > DM::Resources. > > Is there a reason for dm-validations to make an effort to support non-dm > objects? dm-validations depends on dm-core, so it can't be used independently > (via rubygems, anyway). > > Any thoughts? > > -- Emmanuel > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DataMapper" 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/datamapper?hl=en.
