8000 Updated Valid constraint reference by inso · Pull Request #4381 · symfony/symfony-docs · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to content

Updated Valid constraint reference #4381

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2014
Merged

Updated Valid constraint reference #4381

merged 1 commit into from
Oct 29, 2014

Conversation

inso
Copy link
@inso inso commented Oct 27, 2014
Q A
Doc fix? yes
New docs? no
Applies to 2.3
Fixed tickets

Revised PR #4351 for 2.3 branch

@wouterj
Copy link
Member
wouterj commented Oct 27, 2014

👍

This is the message that will be shown if the value is false.
If this constraint is applied to a property that holds an array of objects,
then each object in that array will be validated recursively if this option is set
to ``true``.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Maybe we can reword this a bit. For example:

If this constraint is enabled on a property that holds an array, each element in that array will be validated recursively.

What do you think?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I think this is wrong, this sentence is about option deep.
Constraint can be applied to property, but not enabled and option deep can be enabled.

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Yeah, you're right. I should have written it like this:

If the constraint is applied on a property that holds an array and the deep option is enabled, each element in that array will be validated recursively.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've used the same wording as used for option traverse.
Personally I also don't like that sentence, and I think that description of both options should be changed (in separate PR?).

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi guys!

I've merged this in because it has some nice fixes and is at least 90% of the way there. So, let's talk about the wording here.

As I understand it (just from reading what we have here), these 2 options (traverse and deep) apply only if this is applied to a collection of objects. Is that correct?

Now, even though I can see the wording difference between traverse and deep, I don't really understand yet what the difference is. Does traverse mean "validate the objects" and deep means "validate the objects AND validate any objects embedded in those objects"?. Or does it mean something else? Does it make sense to set both traverse and deep to true at the same time, or is this redundant?

As you can see, I don't know yet exactly how this feature works. What I think we should do is include these in the main "Basic Usage" section so people can really see how they work and how they work together. This may mean we have a new sub-section called something like "Validating a collection of items".

What do you guys think?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'm actually not sure what they do. Maybe @webmozart can shed some light on it.

@weaverryan
Copy link
Member

Great fixes - thanks @inso! I'll comment separately about the wording dicussions :).

@weaverryan weaverryan merged commit a50bb96 into symfony:2.3 Oct 29, 2014
weaverryan added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 29, 2014
This PR was merged into the 2.3 branch.

Discussion
----------

Updated Valid constraint reference

| Q              | A
| ------------- | ---
| Doc fix?      | yes
| New docs?     | no
| Applies to    | 2.3
| Fixed tickets |

Revised PR #4351 for 2.3 branch

Commits
-------

a50bb96 Updated Valid constraint reference
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
0