Hi John (and any other Intake users),
Sorry to spam the list again, but if someone could just let me know what the
issues are, I could spend the time coming up with a proposal to fix this bug.
All I really need to know is if anyone's existing Turbine applications rely
on this bug in Intake for their correct operation.
At the moment in our application, we are forced to work around the bug in our
Action classes, by doing explicit checking on the value of the affected
fields before validation. I'll cut and paste some code from one of our
actions into this email as it has been particularly well commented by one of
my fellow developers....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
// This runs through all the fields in the group, and sets
// them in the project, _if_ they have been set in the input.
// Note however that a parameter present in the input but
// with an empty value is currently treated by Intake as
// unset (that is, Field foo.isSet() returns false), so
// we need the following workaround to allow the user to
// empty out optional fields.
projectGroup.setProperties(project);
// Allow the user to null out optional fields.
// Note that this workaround is itself problematic, because
// it cannot distinguish between empty and missing parameters
// (getTestValue() returns null in either case), which means
// that if we remove these fields from the front-end form,
// we have to remember to remove the workaround here (or
// else these properties will always get nulled out).
if (projectGroup.get("Description").getTestValue() == null)
project.setDescription(null);
if (projectGroup.get("Theme").getTestValue() == null)
project.setTheme(null);
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone who uses Intake encountered this bug before? Any feedback would
be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
-- Rodney
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 04:23, you wrote:
> > I think removing the conditional that you suggest will have other
> > repercussions. I will look further at this, but it will probably be a
> > few days.
> >
> > john mcnally
> >
> > Rodney Schneider wrote:
> > > Hi Edmund and John!
> > >
> > > I have sent two emails to this list regarding this bug in Intake and
> > > no-one has replied yet :( It exists in both the most recent Turbine
> > > 2.2 code and the most recent CVS version of Fulcrum.
> > >
> > > I'll try to explain myself a bit better this time as maybe the bug
> > > report I sent wasn't clear. See this message...
> > >
> > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg06959.ht
> > >ml
> > >
> > > > > > I have got a problem with the rules for checking field values in
> > > > > > intake. Somehow I cannot check for empty fields. I define the
> > > > > > rule as explained in the docs like this:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > > <field name="PersonName" key="personname" type="String">
> > > > > > <rule name="minLength" value="1">Bitte geben Sie den
> > > > > > Nachnamen an.</rule> </field>
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When I leave the field empty, intake does not report an error.
> > > > > > (isAllValid() still returns true)
> > > > >
> > > > > not sure why this does not work.
> > >
> > > If a browser submits a form with an empty text field (with, say, the
> > > parameter name="foo"), then the request parameters will come in in the
> > > form "?foo=&bar=..." etc., and both javax.servlet.HttpServletRequest
> > > and org.apache.turbine.util.ParameterParser will report that the
> > > parameter "foo" is present with the value "" (the empty string).
> > > However, org.apache.turbine.services.intake.model.Field will treat this
> > > field as if it is not present at all: specifically, in the method
> > > validate() is the following code:
> > >
> > > stringValue = pp.getString(getKey());
> > > if ( stringValue.length() == 0 )
> > > {
> > > set_flag = false;
> > > }
> > >
> > > Thus, there is no way to distinguish between an empty field and a field
> > > that is not present in the HTML form at all.
> > >
> > > I am happy to generate a patch that removes the above check, but I am
> > > not sure if this will affect the rest of the Intake code...
> > >
> > > > > > I have experimented a bit with intake, and other rules actually
> > > > > > do work as expected, if the field value is not empty. It seems
> > > > > > the rules simply bypassed for empty fields and no checks are
> > > > > > applied. So I also tried setting the required messsage:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > > <field name="PersonName" key="personname" type="String">
> > > > > > <required-message>Bitte geben Sie den Nachnamen
> > > > > > an.</required-message> </field>
> > > > > > ..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, no error when I leave the field empty. Is this a bug in
> > > > > > the intake service (included in TDK 2.1 release) or am I doing
> > > > > > something wrong?
> > >
> > > See above.
> > >
> > > > > <required-message> is to provide a message that is to be displayed
> > > > > if the field is declared as required and the field is empty. It
> > > > > does not make the field required.
> > > > >
> > > > > <rule name="required" value="true">Bitte geben Sie den Nachnamen
> > > > > an.</rule>
> > > > >
> > > > > should work, though i have not looked at what's in 2.1 for a while.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the quick reply. That rule actually does seem to work
> > > > (though I cannot find anything about a rule with name "required" in
> > > > the intake docs at
> > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/turbine/turbine-2/services/intake-service.h
> > > >tm l).
> > >
> > > The "required" rule does work, but this doesn't help in all situations.
> > > One simple example is an "Edit User Profile" form which contains an
> > > "Email Address" field that is not required and a "Work Phone Number"
> > > field that is required. When a user first registers, they type in a
> > > valid email address in the "Email Address" field and their current work
> > > phone number in the "Work Phone Number" field. Then they change jobs,
> > > so they go to the Edit User Profile page, empty the email address
> > > field, edit the work phone number field (but accidentally type a 'abc'
> > > instead of a valid number) and submit the form. Intake finds the the
> > > Work Phone Number field is invalid so it redisplays the page containing
> > > the form with the appropriate error message. HERE IS THE PROBLEM....
> > > the email address field is pre-populated with the old email address
> > > even though the user had previously emptied it!!
> > >
> > > This happens because Intake doesn't disinguish empty fields from fields
> > > that are not present in the form at all. See my other email for more
> > > information.
> > >
> > > > A bit odd is, that the isAllValid() method still returns true, but
> > > > lateron when I try to assign the fields to the proper data object
> > > > (using the group.setProperties() method) an exception is thrown
> > > > (message: "Attempted to assign an invalid input").
> > > >
> > > > Maybe I can figure out another way to check the field validity
> > > > (either that, or I will have to watch for that exception).
> > >
> > > I think the abovementioned code should be removed from
> > > org.apache.turbine.services.intake.model.Field and
> > > org.apache.fulcrum.intake.model.Field but, again, I am not sure whether
> > > other code in Intake relies on the above check or whether existing
> > > applications that use Intake will be affected.
> > >
> > > If you want me to submit a patch, please let me know.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > -- Rodney
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
