On 7/6/07, Adam Winer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you remove simple="true" from the inputText, what happens?
Or, if you set an "id" on the tr:inputText and add a tr:message
component, what happens?
Removing it and clicking the link prints a nice message next to the
form field. Also, adding
<tr:message for="foo" />
and setting the input's id to foo gives the same effect. So I think
you're right, it silently chokes if there isn't anywhere to show the
message.
simple="true" means
there's no implict message component in the content.
My suspicion is that the client-side validation is trying
to show the error message inline, failing to find anywhere
to write the message, and just swallowing it. We
could either:
1. show these messages as JS alerts
2. show these messages in some other block of content,
picked perhaps arbitrarily (in tr:messages by default,
otherwise at the head of the page?)
3. blow off client-side validation altogether for those elements
-- Adam
On 7/6/07, noah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm getting weird client side behavior with the tr:inputs. It seems
> to be connected to validation. The example below just has one required
> field, but I get the same behavior on larger forms when other
> validation rules are not satisfied.
>
> <tr:document xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml";
> xmlns:ui="http://java.sun.com/jsf/facelets";
> xmlns:f="http://java.sun.com/jsf/core";
> xmlns:h="http://java.sun.com/jsf/html";
> xmlns:tr="http://myfaces.apache.org/trinidad";>
> <tr:form>
> <tr:messages />
>
> <h:outputText value="Foo=#{pageFlowScope.foo}" />
> <tr:inputText required="true" simple="true"
> value="#{pageFlowScope.bar}" />
> <tr:commandLink text="foo">
> <f:setPropertyActionListener target="#{pageFlowScope.foo}"
> value="bar" />
> </tr:commandLink>
> </tr:form>
> </tr:document>
>
> Anyhow, if the input field is blank clicking the link does nothing. No
> messages, nothing. If I switch to an h:inputText, the form submits
> and I get a message. Do I need to do something special to get
> messages from the client side validation that appears to be going on?
>
