Fields are sometimes marked as required when they are not #1799
Comments
jmeinerz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 23, 2020
We were assuming that all fields were required when a presence
validation existed. While that makes sense, it's also possible for
validations to be conditional.
Take the following validation as an example:
validates :phone_number, presence: true, if: :egyptian?
Before this commit, the UI would flag phone_number as required, even for
records who were not egyptian.
We now always flag these fields as optional. This is a bit misleading
too, but it's impossible to know these things when the page is rendered,
and marking them as optional makes for a slightly better user interface,
as the user will most likely be prompted with detailed validation errors
after trying to persist an invalid item, rather than be led to fill some
fields that are, in fact, not mandatory.
jmeinerz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2020
We were assuming that all fields were required when a presence
validation existed. While that makes sense, it's also possible for
validations to be conditional.
Take the following validation as an example:
validates :phone_number, presence: true, if: :egyptian?
Before this commit, the UI would flag phone_number as required, even for
records who were not egyptian.
We now always flag these fields as optional. This is a bit misleading
too, but it's impossible to know these things when the page is rendered,
and marking them as optional makes for a slightly better user interface,
as the user will most likely be prompted with detailed validation errors
after trying to persist an invalid item, rather than be led to fill some
fields that are, in fact, not mandatory.
jmeinerz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2020
We were assuming that all fields were required when a presence
validation existed. While that makes sense, it's also possible for
validations to be conditional.
Take the following validation as an example:
validates :phone_number, presence: true, if: :egyptian?
Before this commit, the UI would flag phone_number as required, even for
records who were not egyptian.
We now always flag these fields as optional. This is a bit misleading
too, but it's impossible to know these things when the page is rendered,
and marking them as optional makes for a slightly better user interface,
as the user will most likely be prompted with detailed validation errors
after trying to persist an invalid item, rather than be led to fill some
fields that are, in fact, not mandatory.
jmeinerz
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2020
We were assuming that all fields were required when a presence
validation existed. While that makes sense, it's also possible for
validations to be conditional.
Take the following validation as an example:
validates :phone_number, presence: true, if: :egyptian?
Before this commit, the UI would flag phone_number as required, even for
records who were not egyptian.
We now always flag these fields as optional. This is a bit misleading
too, but it's impossible to know these things when the page is rendered,
and marking them as optional makes for a slightly better user interface,
as the user will most likely be prompted with detailed validation errors
after trying to persist an invalid item, rather than be led to fill some
fields that are, in fact, not mandatory.
|
Fixed by #1808 |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Merging #1521 gave Administrate the ability to detect "required" fields and mark them as such.
However, this detection is not always perfect. On occasion, there will be
:if/:unlessconditions attached to the validation rule. These are not correctly interepreted by Administrate. So for example:Originally posted by @sedubois in #1521 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: