DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14471>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14471 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|enhancement |normal Status|REOPENED |ASSIGNED ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2004-12-02 19:47 ------- This is not an enhancement, but a bug. I am running into this problem today, and the best patch available is from comment #1, which is placing this code after retrieving the field: if (field == null) { continue; } To answer comment #7: When fields are not required, there should not be a penalty if the field is absent. All server-side validation works under this premesis. For example, when the "maxlength" validation is specified for a form property, but the field is absent in the submission, the validation is not applied. Thus, the implication is that it is acceptable for non-required fields to be absent. So to "push it deeper -- down into validation.xml as a <field> optional attribute" is not needed. By definition, fields without the "required" validation are optional. However, today's JavaScript validation is deficient and a penalty occurs for non-required fields. The JavaScript blindly tries to access properties for fields that may not exist. This penalty needs to be removed to match expectations. I am willing to work on this if no one else is. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
