I'm pretty sure that I wrote the compareToValidator so that it will work on either component, unlike the equalsValidator. However, I doubt many people have used it as a validator for the first component listed (I know that I don't use it this way), so there might be a minor bug to fix.
On 9/4/07, Andrew Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I took a look into the code to make sure I knew what was going on and > here is what I found: > > It looks like the problem you are having is due to the design of the > ValidateEqual class. It is performing its logic in the validation > phase using the EditableValueHolder.getValue() function. This presents > a problem on the first component. Reason as follows: > > "equal" has an EqualValidator added to it during the view creation > "equal2" has an EqualValidator added to it during the view creation > > during the decode phase, equal and equal2 are decoded and the values > from the client are stored in the submittedValue property of each > component. > > during the validation phase: > > The "equal" component's processValidators method calls the validate > function. This function converts the submitted value. If there are no > problems, the validation of the component is called (validateValue > function). If the component is valid, the local value (setValue) is > called. > > So, at the time that the "equal" is validating, equal2 has not set its > local value (it is currently null, only the submitted value is set) > and the submitted value is not converted. > > So, equal cannot compare it's local value to equal2's local value > since equal2 is not yet validated. > > This means that in order for the validate compare to and validate > equal components to work, they have to be on the second component as > the first component has to be already be validate, and be valid! > Otherwise, the local value is not set, which is what these validators > use to validate against. > > So the short answer to your question is your use case is not > supported. The validators *have* to be only on the 2nd component. > > -Andrew > > > On 9/4/07, Suhel Rizvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I agree with you but unfortunately the customer for whom I'm developing the > > software doesn't, but additionally the problem in itself is something we > > should be able to solve relatively simply I would have thought as it may be > > a valid scenario in other software projects. > > > > >From: "Andrew Robinson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >Reply-To: "MyFaces Discussion" <[email protected]> > > >To: "MyFaces Discussion" <[email protected]> > > >Subject: Re: [Tomahawk] validateEqual problem for second field > > >Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:41:39 -0600 > > > > > >Not a solution but a question, > > > > > >why have the validate equal on both components, it should only be > > >necessary to put it on one of the components (like the 2nd one). The > > >user shouldn't need two messages telling them they screwed up, one > > >should be necessary :-) > > > > > >-Andrew > > > > > >On 9/4/07, Suhel Rizvi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I am using the tomahawk validateEqual tag to check if two (non > > >mandatory) > > > > fields on a form are equal to each other but hitting some problems > > >related > > > > to the order of the field validations. > > > > > > > > In the example below the validation and error message attached to the > > >second > > > > field works fine. However for the validation on the first field it seems > > >I > > > > have to submit the form the fields are in twice if the fields are equal > > >- > > > > the first time it always displays the error message saying they are > > >unequal > > > > but seems to realize they are equal on second submit. > > > > > > > > <h:inputText id="equal" > > > > value="#{validateForm.equal}" > > > > required="false"> > > > > <t:validateEqual for="equa2l" /> > > > > </h:inputText> > > > > <h:inputText id="equal2" > > > > value="#{validateForm.equal2}" > > > > required="false"> > > > > <t:validateEqual for="equal" /> > > > > </h:inputText> > > > > > > > > Does anyone know why this is happening or have a solution ? > > > > > > > > [I have also tried the sandbox validateCompareTo tag as an alternative > > >with > > > > similar results.] > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > > > Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live - > > > > http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk > > > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Get Pimped! FREE emoticon packs from Windows Live - > > http://www.pimpmylive.co.uk > > > > >
