Interesting.
I would guess that this is due to the use of a tr:subform rather than a
normal form. I don't use trinidad myself, so don't know what the
expected behaviour of a tr:subform with respect to required fields is.
Certainly a normal h:form *should* enforce the required flag on every
field, and I'm pretty sure it does.
Could you also try duplicating this with a simple page with the
following setup? I'm 99.99% sure that validation will work correctly
with this:
* An h:form with h:inputText and h:commandButton components in it
* The commandButton is not immediate
* The h:inputText field has an explicit id (just for convenience of testing)
* The h:inputText field is marked as required
* Mock up a POST request to the server which does contain data for the
commandButton, but does NOT contain a value for the inputText id.
If you find that the h:form variant works, then I would suggest trying
the same test but with tr:subform instead. If that fails, then I would
suggest starting a new thread and put [trinidad] in the subject line to
ensure that the trinidad people see the email.
Regards,
Simon
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
Hi Simon,
Just tried it and yes, it happens with a simple h:inputText instead of
the tr:inputText, too.
Felix
-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Kitching [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 4:41 PM
To: MyFaces Discussion
Subject: Re: wrong/missing validation behaviour - security problem.
Does this happen if you use an h:inputText rather than a tr:inputText?
