Skip to content

(Proposal) Added a note on forms validation #10331

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mickaelandrieu
Copy link
Contributor

Hello!

regarding the way I validate my forms, I've always found that storing validation rules into my entities is a better idea than using the constraints inside my form types.

When I need a really specific control on my form validation, I inject validation groups: do you think it can be viewed as a best practice?

public $title;
}

This make them reusables and independents from the validation rules.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

independent

----------

Define your validation constraints outside of the forms, for instance directly on the object
class used as data mapper::
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Maybe reword it a bit like this:

Do not define your validation constraint with the constraints option. Configure them on the object the form is mapped to instead:

@xabbuh
Copy link
Member

xabbuh commented Sep 12, 2018

👍 I agree

@mickaelandrieu
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @xabbuh, thanks for the review :)

Thinking about it, is it a good place to add a note about validation groups?

Something like:

If you need to apply multiple sets of rules using the same form type, use validation groups.

With a minimal example attached to this note: WDYT?

@xabbuh
Copy link
Member

xabbuh commented Sep 12, 2018

I think it would probably be better to put it the other way around:

If your form requires only a subset of all the configured validation constraints, [...]

And then just link this paragraph to the article about validation groups.

@javiereguiluz
Copy link
Member

@mickaelandrieu I liked both your original proposal and the reword suggestions made by @xabbuh so I reworded this accordingly. What do you think? Thanks!

@mickaelandrieu
Copy link
Contributor Author

mickaelandrieu commented Sep 13, 2018

@javiereguiluz you have improved my proposal as always!

Thank you 👍

Edit: so we don't add a note about validation groups?

Validation
----------

The `constraints`_ option allows you to attach `validation constraints`_ to any
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

we should use the doc or ref role here instead

@javiereguiluz
Copy link
Member

I've merged this "as is" and I'll fix the internal links in a separate PR. Thanks Mickaël!

javiereguiluz added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2018
…ieu, javiereguiluz)

This PR was submitted for the 4.1 branch but it was merged into the 2.8 branch instead (closes #10331).

Discussion
----------

(Proposal) Added a note on forms validation

Hello!

regarding the way I validate my forms, I've always found that storing validation rules into my entities is a better idea than using the constraints inside my form types.

When I need a really specific control on my form validation, I inject validation groups: do you think it can be viewed as a best practice?

Commits
-------

68a7931 Reword
21c4c9f Added a note on forms validation
javiereguiluz added a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2018
This PR was merged into the 2.8 branch.

Discussion
----------

Use cross references for internal links

This PR updates the internal links of #10331.

Commits
-------

8e41b98 Use cross references for internal links
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants