Home of the ColdFusion Community
|
Mailing Lists
|
Home /
Groups /
ColdFusion Talk (CF-Talk)
Smart or Stupid (CFLOOP as a GOTO)
Author: Mike Kear
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126475
Jim, I think you are due for a couple of days off. GO home. Get a
beverage, sit in front of the TV and veg for a couple of days.
Or go water skiing or hang gliding or bungee jumping.
But I think you're due a couple of days away from the keyboard.
I know **I'd** like it if you did.
Cheers,
Michael Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks.
> Bluntness and forthfightness are what I'm well known for and it's made me
> lots of trouble over the years, but it does save a lot of time. I still
> got
> my point across didn't I, even if it doesn't apply to this specific field.
I'm pretty sure that getting a point across that has nothing to do with the
topic at hand isn't something to be particularly proud of.
> No offence intended.
None taken. How could I when you were actually unable to say anything about
the topic at hand?
This wasn't actually blunt, forthright or tactless - it was Tourette
Syndrome.
Jim Davis, still tired and cranky.
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126474
> Bluntness and forthfightness are what I'm well known for and it's made me
> lots of trouble over the years, but it does save a lot of time. I still
> got
> my point across didn't I, even if it doesn't apply to this specific field.
I'm pretty sure that getting a point across that has nothing to do with the
topic at hand isn't something to be particularly proud of.
> No offence intended.
None taken. How could I when you were actually unable to say anything about
the topic at hand?
This wasn't actually blunt, forthright or tactless - it was Tourette
Syndrome.
Jim Davis, still tired and cranky.
Author: Mike Kear
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126473
Well it'll be a wonderful day, and make my tired old mother smile with
satisfaction if the day ever comes when someone says I'm tactful.
Bluntness and forthfightness are what I'm well known for and it's made me
lots of trouble over the years, but it does save a lot of time. I still got
my point across didn't I, even if it doesn't apply to this specific field.
No offence intended.
Cheers,
Michael Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks.
> When you're done, can you let us know which site it is, so I'll put it on
> my
> list of sites never to go to? I HATE forms that tell me somethings wrong,
> I
> correct that, then it says something else is wrong.
As I've already told Jochem (who made the same comment, only far more
tactfully) this for a SINGLE FIELD.
The email field (a SINGLE FIELD) for example might:
1) Need to be populated.
2) Need to be less than 255 characters
3) Need to follow general email format.
4) Need to be checked against the database.
You would NEVER want all four of these situations to be shown at once. You
want the system to validate until it finds an error then STOP (you don't
check the database if there's no value for example). You store than error,
then check the other fields (which may themselves have many validations).
So a single form MAY display multiple issues - but a single FIELD would only
display one.
You are still left with the potential for several iteration of a form. They
forget the email here, but here it's been found not to be unique.
But if you still want to stay away from the sites here they are:
www.depressedpres.com
www.cfadvocacy.org
www.firstnight.org
Jim Davis, tired and cranky.
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126471
Yup.
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Matt Blatchley ~ Bridgeleaf Studios
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126469
Jim,
Are you Tired and Cranky in New England?
> When you're done, can you let us know which site it is, so I'll put it on
> my
> list of sites never to go to? I HATE forms that tell me somethings wrong,
> I
> correct that, then it says something else is wrong.
As I've already told Jochem (who made the same comment, only far more
tactfully) this for a SINGLE FIELD.
The email field (a SINGLE FIELD) for example might:
1) Need to be populated.
2) Need to be less than 255 characters
3) Need to follow general email format.
4) Need to be checked against the database.
You would NEVER want all four of these situations to be shown at once. You
want the system to validate until it finds an error then STOP (you don't
check the database if there's no value for example). You store than error,
then check the other fields (which may themselves have many validations).
So a single form MAY display multiple issues - but a single FIELD would only
display one.
You are still left with the potential for several iteration of a form. They
forget the email here, but here it's been found not to be unique.
But if you still want to stay away from the sites here they are:
www.depressedpres.com
www.cfadvocacy.org
www.firstnight.org
Jim Davis, tired and cranky.
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126468
> When you're done, can you let us know which site it is, so I'll put it on
> my
> list of sites never to go to? I HATE forms that tell me somethings wrong,
> I
> correct that, then it says something else is wrong.
As I've already told Jochem (who made the same comment, only far more
tactfully) this for a SINGLE FIELD.
The email field (a SINGLE FIELD) for example might:
1) Need to be populated.
2) Need to be less than 255 characters
3) Need to follow general email format.
4) Need to be checked against the database.
You would NEVER want all four of these situations to be shown at once. You
want the system to validate until it finds an error then STOP (you don't
check the database if there's no value for example). You store than error,
then check the other fields (which may themselves have many validations).
So a single form MAY display multiple issues - but a single FIELD would only
display one.
You are still left with the potential for several iteration of a form. They
forget the email here, but here it's been found not to be unique.
But if you still want to stay away from the sites here they are:
www.depressedpres.com
www.cfadvocacy.org
www.firstnight.org
Jim Davis, tired and cranky.
Author: Mike Kear
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126465
When you're done, can you let us know which site it is, so I'll put it on my
list of sites never to go to? I HATE forms that tell me somethings wrong, I
correct that, then it says something else is wrong.
Then when I go back, usually my last input is removed from the form so I
have to fill it all out again. Yahoo mail is like that. It can take half
an hour or more to create a yahoo mail account. You have to go back and
change something, and when you do, you don't notice that a checkbox is no
longer selected, or it's changed the country back to the default of USA and
therefore you haven't entered a valid zipcode.
I strongly urge you to think about giving the user all the things that are
wrong with his form, WITH the form below it with all the previous entries
already filled out, so they only have to correct the errors and they can
proceed. It's much better that way. You'll have less user rage.
Please?
Cheers,
Michael Kear
Windsor, NSW, Australia
AFP Webworks.
Author: jonhall
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126464
Sure, but that's why you loop over the validation types as well.
something like...
valStruct.email = listToArray("null,maxlength,email");
valStruct.email.value = "me@here.com";
valid = true;
while(valid) {
valid = true;
for(i = 1; i LT arrayLen(valStruct.email), i = i + 1) {
switch(vType[i]) {
case "null":
valid = isNull(valStruct.email.value);
if (NOT valid)
break;
case "maxlength":
valid = checkLength(valStruct.email.value);
if (NOT valid)
break;
etc...
}
if (NOT valid)
break;
}
}
This is very generally the best form validation routine
I've been able to come up with in CF, at least until the form
collection becomes an object itself. Of course if you are not on
MX...you can't do cfquery's in UDF's, so perhaps the best angle would
be to have each validation type a custom tag...
Wouldn't it be cool though if we could have a loop watched a
particular variable/method for an event? Like if a particular variable
changed...the event is fired which breaks the loop immediately.
--
mailto:jonhall@ozline.net
Friday, June 27, 2003, 7:43:54 PM, you wrote:
JD> That's only checked (as far as I understand it) before each iteration, not
JD> throughout the processing.
JD> In other words setting "theform" equal to "invalid" will not stop
processing
JD> immediately - it will finish out the rest of the code in the loop THEN
stop.
JD> Jim Davis
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
JD>
Author: Matt Blatchley ~ Bridgeleaf Studios
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126461
Ususally I stick to the if than else routine, but I think I'd try the
different options mentioned here and see what works better. I'll bet it
looks a hell of a lot cleaner :)
> Why not just use JavaScript client side and then use CF server side?
JavaScript will be added later - but first I want to ensure that lacking
script everything still works as it should (a practice I highly recommend).
Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126460
> Why not just use JavaScript client side and then use CF server side?
JavaScript will be added later - but first I want to ensure that lacking
script everything still works as it should (a practice I highly recommend).
Jim Davis
Author: Matt Blatchley ~ Bridgeleaf Studios
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126459
Why not just use JavaScript client side and then use CF server side?
I could - I was just hoping for a quick(er) fix.
I guess I'm also being a little silly... thinking that CFTRY is only for
"pure" errors, not validation rules...
But I probably should use it... it does make perfect sense.
Jim Davis
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126456
I could - I was just hoping for a quick(er) fix.
I guess I'm also being a little silly... thinking that CFTRY is only for
"pure" errors, not validation rules...
But I probably should use it... it does make perfect sense.
Jim Davis
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126455
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
This is more for multiple validations on a single field. So, for example,
if there's no email address entered I don't want to go though the process of
checking to see if it's in the DB.
I could do this with a lot of CFIF logic, but I was looking for a way to
bail out totally ignoring further checks (for the same field).
Jim Davis
Author: Jochem van Dieten
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126453
Jim Davis wrote:
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
I think checking all the input and then displaying all the errors at
once provides a much better user experience.
Jochem
Author: Scott Brady
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126454
> That's only checked (as far as I understand it) before each iteration, not
> throughout the processing.
>
> In other words setting "theform" equal to "invalid" will not stop
processing
> immediately - it will finish out the rest of the code in the loop THEN
stop.
What about using a cftry/catch block?
Put a cftry around it (forget the loop entirely). When you encounter a
validation issue, cfthrow with your error message. Then, in the cfcatch, do
what you need to do when you want to stop the processing.
<cftry>
<cfif emailIsInvalid>
<cfthrow type="myValidation" message="The e-mail address is
invalid.">
</cfif>
<cfcatch type="myValidation">
<cfoutput>
#cfcatch.message#
</cfoutput>
<cfabort>
</cfcatch>
</cftry>
-------------------------------------------
Scott Brady
http://www.scottbrady.net
Author: Barney Boisvert
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126452
That's a really clever idea. I'm a FB guy so I never really been in that
situation (and I usually prefer to generate all error message not just the
first), but if that's what you're looking for, I'd say it's a perfect
solution.
Here's a different take on the same idea, except using the same template as
both the form and the validation custom tag. Obviously have to flesh it
out, but it'll let you have both your custom tag and your consolidated code
all in one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<cfif isDefined("thistag")>
<!--- validation --->
<cfif len(form.email) EQ 0>
<cfexit method="exittag" />
<cfelseif ... >
...
</cfif>
<cfelse>
<!--- form --->
<cfif isDefined("form.myFirstField")>
<cfmodule template="#getFileFromPath(getCurrentTemplatePath())#" />
</cfif>
<form ...>
...
</form>
</cfif>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Barney Boisvert, Senior Development Engineer
AudienceCentral
bboisvert@audiencecentral.com
voice : 360.756.8080 x12
fax : 360.647.5351
www.audiencecentral.com
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126451
That's only checked (as far as I understand it) before each iteration, not
throughout the processing.
In other words setting "theform" equal to "invalid" will not stop processing
immediately - it will finish out the rest of the code in the loop THEN stop.
Jim Davis
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
Author: Kwang Suh
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126450
Why not use the condition attribute?
<cfloop condition="theForm eq valid">
----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----
The
> instant a problem is found I want to stop checking. I would then
redisplay
> the form and so forth.
>
> In a custom tag or function I might, when an error is found simply
"return"
> to the caller with the error information. Since this is a rather small
set
> and is only the first of many small forms I decided (perhaps wrongly) to
> just do the validation at the top of the page.
>
> To simulate a components ability to return at any point I wrapped the
whole
> validation block in a CFLOOP from 1 to 1 (1 iteration) - as soon as I hit
an
> error (and set the error variable) I CFBREAK. Right after the loop I
check
> the value of the error variable.
>
> Now that I'm looking at it I'm not sure... is this just the stupidest
thing
> you're ever heard? Should I take the extra time and create a customized
> validation custom tag for each and every form?
>
> Jim Davis
Author: Jim Davis
Short Link: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-talk/thread.cfm/threadid:25135#126449
This may be a VERY dumb question, but I'm brain fried.
Okay - so I'm working on a form and I need to validate fields for many
things. Taking "email address" for example I need to validate that it's
been filled in (not zero length), that it's less than 255 characters (the
database limit), that it fits a email format and finally that the email
address isn't already in use.
What I'd like to be able to do is check through all these validations. The
instant a problem is found I want to stop checking. I would then redisplay
the form and so forth.
In a custom tag or function I might, when an error is found simply "return"
to the caller with the error information. Since this is a rather small set
and is only the first of many small forms I decided (perhaps wrongly) to
just do the validation at the top of the page.
To simulate a components ability to return at any point I wrapped the whole
validation block in a CFLOOP from 1 to 1 (1 iteration) - as soon as I hit an
error (and set the error variable) I CFBREAK. Right after the loop I check
the value of the error variable.
Now that I'm looking at it I'm not sure... is this just the stupidest thing
you're ever heard? Should I take the extra time and create a customized
validation custom tag for each and every form?
Jim Davis
|
May 24, 2012
|
Latest Fusion Authority Articles
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
