Added new option to fix a little issue originated from last PR#3844
Added new option to fix a little issue originated from last PR#3844iquabius wants to merge 3 commits into
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why you add a space ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To align with the line below!
|
@bakura10 sent this PR (#3869), to fix a BC break originated from this PR (#3803). If his PR is really necessary, this one isn't. I think this new option is a good idea, if it can't be in this version, it could be added in some next version (from what I see just in ZF 3.0, right!?) So someone take a good look and decide what is the best solution! |
|
I think we need to merge my PR, yours still introduce a BC that is not necessary. As you said, you need to keep this for ZF 3 :). |
|
As per the comments, I'll assign this issue to version 3.0.0, that will give us plenty of time to think about it and review it ;) Nonetheless I'd like to thank you for your PR, we have plenty of other issues that you may be willing to work on in the meanwhile! =) |
|
I think I'm missing something; I don't see anything backwards incompatible in this PR. I think we can merge this for 2.2.0. |
Added new option to fix a little issue originated from last PR Conflicts: tests/ZendTest/Validator/IdenticalTest.php
- Two tests were present on master but removed in develop -- and brought back in during merge. Removed.
|
The BC break was fixed with @bakura10's PR. When I first introduced the ability to validate in fieldsets, the line 174 was throwing an exeption - that happened in the case a I actually didn't realize this PR could still be used. |
|
Forgot to close when I merged! |
…dentical-validator Added new option to fix a little issue originated from last PR Conflicts: tests/ZendTest/Validator/IdenticalTest.php
…develop - Two tests were present on master but removed in develop -- and brought back in during merge. Removed.
After I sent this PR, I realised a little problem:
When identical validator is used in a form scope, the form will always provide a context, because of this, it wouldn't be possible to validate a
literaltoken, see the example.This would not work because on validation the validator would try to find
'3'in the context, and then rise an exception when it doesn't find it.To solve this I add a new option,
literal. Setting this to true (it's false by default) would allow a 'literal' validation even when the context is provided. So the above input filter would look like this:This would tell the validator to skip the look up in the context and just use the string
'3'._Note: this option has no affect when context is not provided._