to me it does the method isInputNullable() doesn't say that the current
input is null or not
It says can the input be nullable at one point or not. So check for that
and then if it is
really null or not sounds quite reasonable right?
On Nov 12, 2007 6:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> > >
> >
>
