Bug #52592 for Data-Verifier: Doc amendments

Tue Dec 08 21:55:29 2009 RSAVAGE [...] cpan.org - Ticket created

Subject:

Doc amendments

Hi Folks Great module. Thanx. In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), to get the results. Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field names whose values are valid, not a hashref. Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. TIA.

Tue Dec 08 23:16:44 2009 jshirley+cpan [...] gmail.com - Correspondence added

On Tue Dec 08 21:55:29 2009, RSAVAGE wrote: Show quoted text

> Hi Folks > > Great module. Thanx. > > In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), > to get the results. > > Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field > names whose values are valid, not a hashref. > > Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not > contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. > > TIA.

Thanks for the ticket! The docs will be updated shortly in the next release, but I'm not sure what you mean by your last report. I put a quick test at http://github.com/gphat/data-verifier/blob/master/t/10-toomany.t Is this what you are talking about? If so, the extra keys simply are ignored and are not part of the available validation profile. I just want to clarify before clarifying any docs :) Thanks, -J

Tue Dec 08 23:16:45 2009 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Wed Dec 09 04:16:05 2009 ron [...] savage.net.au - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date:	Wed, 09 Dec 2009 20:14:20 +1100
To:	bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	Ron Savage <ron [...] savage.net.au>

Hi On Tue, 2009-12-08 at 23:16 -0500, J. Shirley via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=52592 > > > On Tue Dec 08 21:55:29 2009, RSAVAGE wrote:

> > Hi Folks > > > > Great module. Thanx. > > > > In Data::Verifier::Results, you refer to values() rather than valid(), > > to get the results. > > > > Also, the docs for values/valid should say it returns an array of field > > names whose values are valid, not a hashref. > > > > Also, in Data::Verifier, the hashref passed in to verify must not > > contain keys not in the profile. This should be documented. > > > > TIA.

> > Thanks for the ticket! > > The docs will be updated shortly in the next release, but I'm not sure > what you mean by your last report. > > I put a quick test at > http://github.com/gphat/data-verifier/blob/master/t/10-toomany.t > > Is this what you are talking about? If so, the extra keys simply are > ignored and are not part of the available validation profile. > > I just want to clarify before clarifying any docs :)

It was my first use of the module, and it looks like I got confused, so just ignore that part of my missive. -- Ron Savage ron@savage.net.au http://savage.net.au/index.html

Wed Dec 09 20:01:18 2009 ron [...] savage.net.au - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 01:01:01 +0000
To:	bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	ron [...] savage.net.au

Hi Folks Also, it's be good if, under the discussion of dependencies, clarification was provided for cases such as: phone_1 => { dependent => {phone_number_type_id_1 => {required => 1} }, required => 0, type => 'Str', }, phone_number_type_id_1 => { required => 0, type => 'Int', }, Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or should I just not put the later spec in at all? I guess the 2nd case is the case.

Wed Dec 09 21:38:01 2009 gphat [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

On Wed Dec 09 20:01:18 2009, ron@savage.net.au wrote: Show quoted text

> Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or > should I just not put the later spec in at all? > > I guess the 2nd case is the case.

You should NOT put in the latter. The dependent profile is - by itself - the definition of the dependent field. Having it in both places would do all sorts of wonky things. I'll try and write something to clarify that.

Thu Dec 10 00:14:23 2009 ron [...] savage.net.au - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #52592] Doc amendments
Date:	Thu, 10 Dec 2009 05:13:25 +0000
To:	bug-Data-Verifier [...] rt.cpan.org
From:	ron [...] savage.net.au

Hi Cory Quoting "Cory Watson via RT" <bug-Data-Verifier@rt.cpan.org>: Show quoted text

> <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=52592 > > > On Wed Dec 09 20:01:18 2009, ron@savage.net.au wrote:

>> Do I assume the dependent spec overrides the later spec for type, or >> should I just not put the later spec in at all? >> >> I guess the 2nd case is the case.

> > You should NOT put in the latter. The dependent profile is - by > itself - the definition of the > dependent field. Having it in both places would do all sorts of > wonky things. > > I'll try and write something to clarify that.

Excellent. Thanx. I've just now finished the conversion from Data::FormValidator to Data::Verifier, and things are going beautifully. The real bugbear with D::FV was the convoluted process involved, making it hard to debug.

Wed Jan 13 09:03:48 2010 gphat [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

Forgot to close this...

Wed Jan 13 09:03:50 2010 gphat [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'

Bug #52592 for Data-Verifier: Doc amendments

Preferred bug tracker