I like to make custom validation methods when dealing with complex
relationships between fields.
On Apr 30, 4:31 am, Ernesto <e.fanz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi guys thx for the responses
>
> @Brian
> i already have the "notEmptY" rule on each field. But the rule will
> fail is the field is not set.
>
> @starkey
> overriding model::save doesn't sound cake-ish to me... imo a custom
> validation rule will be more coherent
>
> @jstein
> thx for the hint
>
> On 30 Apr, 01:54, brian <bally.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I assumed the 'required'=>true was obvious, given the parameters
> > mentioned. I should have mentioned that, also.
>
> > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 6:27 PM, jstein <jst...@image.dk> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 29, 6:00 pm, brian <bally.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> Just use a rule (eg. notEmpty) for each of them. You'll get errors for
> > >> whichever fields were not set.
>
> > > No, "notEmpty" will fail validation, if the field is present but
> > > empty. It will NOT fail, if the field is not set at all.
>
> > > If the field MUST be set, use 'required'=>true (and still use the
> > > notEmpty rule, if empty values should not be allowed).
>
> > > Seehttp://book.cakephp.org/view/129/required
>
> > > I just learned the difference the hard way... ;-)
>
> > > I don't think the case when none of the fields are present can be
> > > handled by validation rules, but starkey has given a solution for
> > > this.
>
> > > Regards
>
> > > Jonathan
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CakePHP" group.
To post to this group, send email to cake-php@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cake-php+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cake-php?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
No comments:
Post a Comment