Two that spring to mind are: validates :auth_code, :absence => true, :unless => :payment_complete? validates :comments, :absence => true, :unless => published?
There may in some cases be some perceived repetition along the lines of the code below. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on if this is acceptable. Though there is repetition I'd feel the intention of the code is clear. validates :auth_code, :presence => true, :if => :payment_complete? validates :auth_code, :absence => true, :unless => :payment_complete? On Feb 27, 9:18 am, Xavier Noria <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Paul Gillard <[email protected]> wrote: > > I often need to validate the absence of active record fields. That > > validation being the direct opposite of validating the presence of a > > field. Would the core team be willing to accept a patch to that > > effect? > > Interesting! Can you explain some uses cases? > > If it makes sense I think it could be added. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" 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/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
