Bug 17433 - Koha::Validator. Validation for the masses!
Summary: Koha::Validator. Validation for the masses!
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Koha
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Architecture, internals, and plumbing (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All All
: P5 - low enhancement (vote)
Assignee: Galen Charlton
QA Contact: Testopia
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on: 14620
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-10-12 12:28 UTC by Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Modified: 2023-08-01 11:51 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Change sponsored?: ---
Patch complexity: ---
Documentation contact:
Documentation submission:
Text to go in the release notes:
Version(s) released in:


Attachments
Bug 17433 - Koha::Validation. Validation for the masses! (14.46 KB, patch)
2016-10-12 12:30 UTC, Olli-Antti Kivilahti
Details | Diff | Splinter Review

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2016-10-12 12:28:24 UTC
There are multiple validation needs inside Koha and currently there is a lot of code duplication regarding for ex simple data type validation (double, integer, char, string, array of emails, ...)

Create a basis for Koha-wide validations usable dynamically with exceptions or without.
Comment 1 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2016-10-12 12:30:15 UTC
Created attachment 56266 [details] [review]
Bug 17433 - Koha::Validation. Validation for the masses!

Koha::Validation->tries now supports data structure validation and some basic type validations.
Comment 2 Jonathan Druart 2016-10-12 14:01:38 UTC
What do you expect the community to do with this patch exactly?
Comment 3 Olli-Antti Kivilahti 2016-10-20 08:27:50 UTC
(In reply to Jonathan Druart from comment #2)
> What do you expect the community to do with this patch exactly?

Do you have another kind of validation system in Koha?

Do you think validation of variables is not important?
Comment 4 Jonathan Druart 2016-10-20 09:02:02 UTC
You do not answer the question :)
The status is new it and depends on a blocked bug report (which depends on another blocked).
Comment 5 Brian 2019-01-15 23:23:27 UTC
any updates on bug 17433?

Carnegie team
Comment 6 Jonathan Druart 2019-02-14 22:43:12 UTC
(In reply to Brian from comment #5)
> any updates on bug 17433?
> 
> Carnegie team

Why are you asking? What are you expecting from this patch?
Comment 7 Brian 2019-03-03 19:47:14 UTC
I just know that it is related to at least 3 other patches of a ticket that concerns a problem with the Validation for *MandatoryField and *UnwantedField sysprefs.  For now I'm putting my foot in the door as to speak so I receive email updates when progress is made and hopefully the patch is eventually finished
Comment 8 Katrin Fischer 2019-03-05 06:56:43 UTC
(In reply to Brian from comment #7)
> I just know that it is related to at least 3 other patches of a ticket that
> concerns a problem with the Validation for *MandatoryField and
> *UnwantedField sysprefs.  For now I'm putting my foot in the door as to
> speak so I receive email updates when progress is made and hopefully the
> patch is eventually finished

There are no other bugs linked to this, so you probably will not receive any emails. This is at the moment a bit of a dead end.
Comment 9 Katrin Fischer 2019-03-05 06:58:14 UTC
(In reply to Katrin Fischer from comment #8)
> (In reply to Brian from comment #7)
> > I just know that it is related to at least 3 other patches of a ticket that
> > concerns a problem with the Validation for *MandatoryField and
> > *UnwantedField sysprefs.  For now I'm putting my foot in the door as to
> > speak so I receive email updates when progress is made and hopefully the
> > patch is eventually finished
> 
> There are no other bugs linked to this, so you probably will not receive any
> emails. This is at the moment a bit of a dead end.

Filing a new separate omnibus bug for validation issues and link them there could be a good idea. I just wouldn't use this here as development seems to have stopped.
Comment 10 Marcel de Rooy 2023-08-01 11:51:37 UTC
A similar idea on bug 34430