On Nov 12, 2007 12:24 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no i think that if is right.
>
> because only if the component is nullable then the isRequiredCheck has to be
> done
> Else if a textfield (which isn't nullable) will report an error when it is
> disabled in html
>
> if we test on !isInputNullable then getConvertedInput() couldn't return
> null...
well yeah...if a component is nullable and getconvertedinput() returns
null that should be ok - no need to check if its required or not...
maybe these names are bad, but to me it doesnt make any sense
-igor
>
> johan
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2007 6:10 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > just so i am reading this right
> >
> > FormComponent:1018
> >
> > if (isValid() && isRequired() && getConvertedInput() == null &&
> > isInputNullable())
> > {
> > reportRequiredError();
> > }
> >
> > that should actually be ( ! isInputNullable() ) no? wanted to make
> > sure i wasnt smoking something before i made the change and broke a
> > bunch of apps out there...
> >
> > -igor
> >
>
