Skip to content

FIO-9683 fixed extra validation message for file component#244

Closed
HannaKurban wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
FIO-9683-file-component-validation
Closed

FIO-9683 fixed extra validation message for file component#244
HannaKurban wants to merge 1 commit intomasterfrom
FIO-9683-file-component-validation

Conversation

@HannaKurban
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Link to Jira Ticket

https://formio.atlassian.net/browse/FIO-9683

Description

Previously, when validating an empty component file with the Multiple Values property set and the required validation, two errors appeared. Since the value for the file component is always an array, for both single and multiple values, the validateRequired process checks for data for the value of the File component and returns the required error if the value is empty. Therefore, in the validate Multiple process, provided that the component file has the validate.required, the error of a non-empty array should not appear.

Breaking Changes / Backwards Compatibility

n/a

Dependencies

n/a

How has this PR been tested?

Automated tests was added. All tests pass locally.

Checklist:

  • I have completed the above PR template
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if applicable)
  • My changes generate no new warnings
  • My changes include tests that prove my fix is effective (or that my feature works as intended)
  • New and existing unit/integration tests pass locally with my changes
  • Any dependent changes have corresponding PRs that are listed above

@brendanbond
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

We don't think this is the right solution; we need a holistic way to determine required versus multiple array-type errors, which I think means just getting rid of the isRequired ? ternary statements.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants