For anyone else interested in this problem, I've submitted a JIRA issue. http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TRINIDAD-726
Eric Fikus Eric Fikus wrote: > > Hello, > > I am seeing some undesirable behavior with the <tr:validateLongRange> tag > in Trinidad 1.0.1. I have an inputText whose value must be a positive > integer: > > <tr:inputText> > <tr:validateLongRange minimum="1" messageDetailMinimum="The quantity > must > be a positive integer"/> > </tr:inputText> > > The problems I have are: > 1. If I enter a string (with no numbers) I see the supplied > messageDetailMinimum. If I enter a number with a decimal point I see > another message, "Validation Error: Value is not of the correct type.". > Apparently there is no way to change this text. I would prefer to either > see the messageDetailMinimum (as happens with a string) or to add an > attribute to the tag to specify the message to show when the value is not > an integer. The default "Value is not of the correct type" is not really > acceptable to me from a usability perspective. > 2. Suppose I have another inputText on the same page that is required. If > I leave that field blank and enter a floating point number in my numeric > input, I will only see a validation error for the required field. I won't > see that the numeric value is not of the correct type until I supply data > for all required fields. > 3. If I enter a floating point number and submit the form, I see the > "Value is not of the correct type" message. If I change the value so it > has another validation error, for example by entering a number that is out > of range, the new error message is added to the page but the original one > is not removed. So the field will show two error messages, in this case > "Validation Error: Value is not of the correct type." followed by "The > quantity must be a positive integer". Despite the fact that the value is > now the correct type. > > Questions: are there workarounds for these problems? Taken together they > seem to make the validateLongRange tag unusable. Can it be improved? Are > people using custom validators for this, or is there a suitable > combination of built-in validators? > > Thank you, > Eric Fikus > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Trinidad--Problems-with-tr%3AvalidateLongRange-tf4443822.html#a12783712 Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
