Re: Problems with not so trivial data validation using Data::FormValidator

[roboticus]

in reply to Problems with not so trivial data validation using Data::FormValidator

ted.byers:

I've never used Data::FormValidator, but looking at your code and the error message leads me to think that your second constraint should be more like:

{
 constraint=>sub {after_today('%m%y')},
 name => 'card_expired'
}

I came to that conclusion because after_today('%m%y') by itself isn't a code reference, but a function call. (Of course if after_today returned a code reference, then my suggestion is worth a bucket of mud.)

Also for block quotes, I tend to use <blockquote><i> ... </i></blockquote>.

...roboticus

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

[ted.byers]

Thanks

I gave that a try, but alas, it didn't change anything. I still get the same error.

Thanks anyway.

Ted

[roboticus]

ted.byers:

Have you looked at the tests for the module? You can use the test "t/multiple_constraints.t" as an example and build on it to find out how to use multiple constraints.

...roboticus

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.

[ted.byers]

I had not, but now I have. Here is the example there:

my %data = (
  multiple => 'to fail',
  #multiple => [qw{this multi-value input will fail on the constraint 
+below}],
  single   => 'to pass',
);

my %profile = (
  required => [qw/
    multiple
    single 
    /],
  constraints => {
      multiple => [
        { name => 'constraint_1', constraint => qr/\w/ }, # pass
        { name => 'constraint_2', constraint => qr/\d/ }, # force fail
+ 
      ],
  },
);


my $results = Data::FormValidator->check(\%data, \%profile);

The only difference, apart from using a regular expression, I see there is that they have the field name where the example from the documentation, and I, have a dummy nme, and where I, and the documentation, have the filed name as the first value in the array, the test does not. But, When I modify my code to resemble the code in that test, I still get the same error.

This is so frustrating.

Thanks

Ted