You must to set the property validateAnnotatedMethodOnly=true, and the
validation occurs only for the correct methods.
<interceptor-ref name="validation">
<param name="validateAnnotatedMethodOnly">true</param>
<param name="excludeMethods">input,back,cancel,browse</param>
</interceptor-ref>
but this is ok for server validation, not for client validation.
Anybody know how to resolve that for client validations?
Veronica.
----- Original Message ----
From: beto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: user@struts.apache.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2007 8:54:02 AM
Subject: RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
I tried removing annotations from the execute method, and the field "confirm"
is still getting validated. It seems like any validation annotation added in
my action causes validation of the defined fields whenever a method not
defined in the validation interceptor configuration (methods excluded from
validation) is called.
Could it be that I'm trying to do something that is not supported? I'll have
another go on google. Found this post in this list, so it looks like I'm not
alone:
http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-XML-vs-annotation-validation---thoughts--tf4229633.html#a12032762
post
Arno wrote:
>
> Well, looking at my code using Validations on methods, I noticed that I
> used
> it only on one method and used @SkipValidation on my other action methods
> (which worked). So I did not try the multi validations scenario.
>
> Just to test, let the validations annotation on only one method and check
> what happens.
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : beto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : vendredi 10 août 2007 13:21
> À : user@struts.apache.org
> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>
>
> Yes, I removed the annotations from the setters. I might be overlooking
> something, but I'm not sure where to start looking at this moment. Is
> there
> any more details I could provide to help you see the clear picture?
>
>
> Arno wrote:
>>
>> Pretty strange indeed. Did you remove all the validation annotations on
>> the
>> field setters?
>>
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : beto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Envoyé : vendredi 10 août 2007 11:56
>> À : user@struts.apache.org
>> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>>
>>
>> Hi again, and thank you for your answer.
>>
>> I've tried using @Validations at the method level as you point out. I'll
>> try
>> to illustrate:
>>
>> I have an action, not annotated with @Validation, with three action
>> methods;
>> input, execute and confirm (custom action method).
>>
>> The input method has no annotations and is not validated as expected.
>>
>> The execute method is annotated with @Validations:
>>
>> @Validations(requiredStrings={
>> @RequiredStringValidator(fieldName="amount",
>> message="Amount is required", key="amount.required") }, regexFields={
>> @RegexFieldValidator(fieldName="amount", expression="^\\d+$",
>> message="Amount has to be numeric", key="amount.numeric") })
>> public String execute() throws Exception {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> The confirm method is also annotated with @Validations:
>>
>> @Validations(expressions={ @ExpressionValidator(expression="confirm ==
>> true", message="test") })
>> public String confirm() throws Exception {
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> And here comes the confusing part. When I call my action with no method
>> name
>> indicator (say MyAction, not MyAction_confirm), both fields (amount and
>> confirm) is validated. I just want to validate "amount" when execute is
>> called and only the field "confirm" when the confirm method is called.
>>
>> What am I doing wrong?
>>
>> beto
>>
>>
>> Arno wrote:
>>>
>>> This is the Validations (with a 's' at the end :-) ) that can be put on
>>> a
>>> method. The syntax is pretty confusing but the functionality quite neat.
>>>
>>>
>>
> http://struts.apache.org/2.x/struts2-core/apidocs/com/opensymphony/xwork2/va
>>> lidator/annotations/Validations.html
>>>
>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>> De : beto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Envoyé : vendredi 10 août 2007 10:57
>>> À : user@struts.apache.org
>>> Objet : RE: S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi.
>>>
>>> I've tried using validation annotation (which works great) and ran into
>>> the
>>> scenario mentioned by Joseph. I have different action methods which
>>> requires
>>> different set of validation rules. I can not find out how to set up
>>> validation annotation to differentiate the validation rules based on
>>> which
>>> action method that is called. I do not wish to use validation xml-files
>>> if
>>> I
>>> can avoid it, and will probably end up creating separate action classes
>>> in
>>> these scenarios if not anybody can point out a solution to this problem.
>>>
>>> Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> Do you have the solution Arno? :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Arno wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You should check the Javadoc of the
>>>> com.opensymphony.xwork2.validator.annotations.Validation annotation.
>>>>
>>>> Syntax example:
>>>>
>>>> @Validations(
>>>> requiredFields =
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED](type =
>>>> ValidatorType.SIMPLE,
>>>> fieldName = "customfield", message = "You must enter a value for
>>>> field.")},
>>>> requiredStrings =
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED](type =
>>>> ValidatorType.SIMPLE,
>>>> fieldName = "stringisrequired", message = "You must enter a value for
>>>> string.")}
>>>>
>>>> )
>>>> public String execute() throws Exception {
>>>> return SUCCESS;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> -----Message d'origine-----
>>>> De : j alex [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Envoyé : jeudi 9 août 2007 15:38
>>>> À : Struts Users Mailing List
>>>> Objet : S2 : Validation per Action method - ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Is there a way to declaratively restrict validations depending on the
>>>> method
>>>> within the Action? - this could be useful for wizard-like forms where
>>>> each
>>>> step of the wizard has a set of fields ; corresponds to a different
>>>> method
>>>> but all of them share the same Action.
>>>>
>>>> I can think of having an expression validator based on currentstep
>>>> added
>>>> to
>>>> every field short-circuited ; but that's more of a workaround rather
>>>> than
>>>> the right way to do it.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Joseph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>>
>>
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242670
>>> .html#a12087696
>>> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242670
>> .html#a12088476
>> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242670
> .html#a12089421
> Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/S2-%3A-Validation-per-Action-method---ideas--tf4242670.html#a12089883
Sent from the Struts - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
____________________________________________________________________________________
Got a little couch potato?
Check out fun summer activities for kids.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
