- Jan 2023
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
- Sep 2021
-
- Mar 2021
-
github.com github.com
-
Responders don't use valid? to check for errors in models to figure out if the request was successful or not, and relies on your controllers to call save or create to trigger the validations.
-
- Feb 2021
-
github.com github.com
-
ActiveInteraction type checks your inputs. Often you'll want more than that. For instance, you may want an input to be a string with at least one non-whitespace character. Instead of writing your own validation for that, you can use validations from ActiveModel. These validations aren't provided by ActiveInteraction. They're from ActiveModel. You can also use any custom validations you wrote yourself in your interactions.
-
Note that it's perfectly fine to add errors during execution. Not all errors have to come from type checking or validation.
-
-
-
with ActiveForm-Rails, validations is the responsability of the form and not of the models. There is no need to synchronize errors from the form to the models and vice versa.
But if you intend to save to a model after the form validates, then you can't escape the models' validations:
either you check that the models pass their own validations ahead of time (like I want to do, and I think @mattheworiordan was wanting to do), or you have to accept that one of the following outcomes is possible/inevitable if the models' own validations fail:
- if you use
object.save
then it may silently fail to save - if you use
object.save
then it will fail to save and raise an error
Are either of those outcomes acceptable to you? To me, they seem not to be. Hence we must also check for / handle the models' validations. Hence we need a way to aggregate errors from both the form object (context-specific validations) and from the models (unconditional/invariant validations that should always be checked by the model), and present them to the user.
What do you guys find to be the best way to accomplish that?
I am interested to know what best practices you use / still use today after all these years. I keep finding myself running into this same problem/need, which is how I ended up looking for what the current options are for form objects today...
- if you use
-
I agre with your concern. I realy prefer to do this : form.assign_attributes(hash) if form.valid? my_service.update(form) #render something else #render somthing else end It looks more like a normal controller.
-
My only concern with this approach is that if someone calls #valid? on the form object afterwards, it would under the hood currently delete the existing errors on the form object and revalidate. The could have unexpected side effects where the errors added by the models passed in or the service called will be lost.
-
My concern with this approach is still that it's somewhat brittle with the current implementation of valid? because whilst valid? appears to be a predicate and should have no side effects, this is not the case and could remove the errors applied by one of the steps above.
Tags
- rails: validation: valid? has side effects
- feels natural
- nice API
- evolved into unfortunate state and too late to fix now
- I have a differing opinion
- should have no side effects
- missing the point
- rails: validation
- whose responsibility is it?
- overlooking/missing something
- surprising behavior
- unfortunate
Annotators
URL
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Some developers found work arounds by using virtual attributes to # skip validators
-
-
-
Any attribute in the list will be allowed, and any defined as attr_{accessor,reader,writer} will not be populated when passed in as params. This means we no longer need to use strong_params in the controllers because the form has a clear definition of what it expects and protects us by design.
strong params not needed since form object handles that responsibility.
That's the same opinion Nick took in Reform...
-
-
github.com github.com
-
Seems similar to Reform, but simpler, plays nicely with Rails
-
-
coderwall.com coderwall.com
-
If you include ActiveModel::Validations you can write the same validators as you would with ActiveRecord. However, in this case, our form is just a collection of Contact objects, which are ActiveRecord and have their own validations. When I save the ContactListForm, it attempts to save all the contacts. In doing so, each contact has its error_messages available.
-
- Apr 2020
-
www.rubydoc.info www.rubydoc.info
-
As mentioned in StateMachines::Machine#state, you can define behaviors, like validations, that only execute for certain states. One important caveat here is that, due to a constraint in ActiveRecord's validation framework, custom validators will not work as expected when defined to run in multiple states.
-
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
- Dec 2019
-
github.com github.com
-
Responders don't use valid? to check for errors in models to figure out if the request was successful or not, and relies on your controllers to call save or create to trigger the validations.
Tags
Annotators
URL
-
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
Arguably, the rails-team's choice of raising ArgumentError instead of validation error is correct in the sense that we have full control over what options a user can select from a radio buttons group, or can select over a select field, so if a programmer happens to add a new radio button that has a typo for its value, then it is good to raise an error as it is an application error, and not a user error. However, for APIs, this will not work because we do not have any control anymore on what values get sent to the server.
-
-
stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com
-
When the controller creates the user, instead of adding a validation error to the record, it raises an exception. How to avoid this?
-
In case anyone wants a hack, here is what I came up with.
-