Of course, the problem still stands, that if you have hidden tabs, how do you direct the user back to them to fix the errors :)
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Stephen Price <step...@perthprojects.com>wrote: > Not considered that, but like the sound. We are using fluent validation > (the framework). I dare say changing how we validate would be massive > change though > > Thanks will investigate whats involved. May have to revisit validation > later have other stuff to focus on now > On Apr 4, 2012 5:12 PM, "Jordan Knight" <jak...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Have you considered idataerrorinfo and validate in your vm instead? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jordan. >> >> On 04/04/2012, at 6:55 PM, Stephen Price <step...@perthprojects.com> >> wrote: >> >> > Hey all, >> > >> > There's an issue with validating Tabs that are not visible with >> Silverlight. Essentially the tab is not visible, thus not in the visual >> tree and so validation can't be done. It's documented if you search for it >> and there are a few hacks around (one is to switch to each tab, validate >> and move on.). I thought about this as an option but am not sure how to >> disabled the screen from flickering while it does this. Nasty hack, so >> don't like. >> > >> > We currently iterate through each RadTab control recursively (nested >> TabControls) and add each control to a collection, then validate each one. >> If any are found we just change the colour of the tab. It seems to work for >> most cases, but I've been tracking down one page that doesn't work right. >> > >> > The problem with this one is there is a control on the page, which is >> where all the work is being done. When the page works (if you just >> navigated to it) then the page returns 2700+ controls to validate. If you >> click save again, while the tab is not visible, then you only get 100. >> Everything inside the control, including the control itself is no longer >> around. So it seems the control is behaving the same way that TabItems >> behave in that if its not visible then you can't validate it. >> > >> > I guess what I'm asking, has anyone hit this before and perhaps come up >> with a clever solution? (Clever solutions will be considered even if you >> haven't hit it before and are just plain clever.) >> > Hell, I'll take dumb solutions at this point! >> > >> > thanks, >> > Stephen >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ozsilverlight mailing list >> > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com >> > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight >> _______________________________________________ >> ozsilverlight mailing list >> ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com >> http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight >> > > _______________________________________________ > ozsilverlight mailing list > ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com > http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight > >
_______________________________________________ ozsilverlight mailing list ozsilverlight@ozsilverlight.com http://prdlxvm0001.codify.net/mailman/listinfo/ozsilverlight
