Search Results

Search found 5991 results on 240 pages for 'w3 validation'.

Page 5/240 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • XML Rules Engine and Validation Tutorial with NIEM

    - by drrwebber
    Our new XML Validation Framework tutorial video is now available. See how to easily integrate code-free adaptive XML validation services into your web services using the Java CAMV validation engine. CAMV allows you to build fault tolerant content checking with XPath that optionally use SQL data lookups. This can provide warnings as well as error conditions to tailor your validation layer to exactly meet your business application needs. Also available is developing test suites using Apache ANT scripting of validations.  This allows a community to share sets of conformance checking test and tools . On the technical XML side the video introduces XPath validation rules and illustrates and the concepts of XML content and structure validation. CAM validation templates allow contextual parameter driven dynamic validation services to be implemented compared to using a static and brittle XSD schema approach.The SQL table lookup and code list validation are discussed and examples presented.Features are highlighted along with a demonstration of the interactive generation of actual live XML data from a SQL data store and then validation processing complete with errors and warnings detection.The presentation provides a primer for developing web service XML validation and integration into a SOA approach along with examples and resources. Also alignment with the NIEM IEPD process for interoperable information exchanges is discussed along with NIEM rules services.The CAMV engine is a high performance scalable Java component for rapidly implementing code-free validation services and methods. CAMV is a next generation WYSIWYG approach that builds from older Schematron coding based interpretative runtime tools and provides a simpler declarative metaphor for rules definition. See: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheCAMeditor

    Read the article

  • Dapper and object validation/business rules enforcement

    - by Eugene
    This isn't really Dapper-specific, actually, as it relates to any XML-serializeable object.. but it came up when I was storing an object using Dapper. Anyways, say I have a user class. Normally, I'd do something like this: class User { public string SIN {get; private set;} public string DisplayName {get;set;} public User(string sin) { if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace(sin)) throw new ArgumentException("SIN must be specified"); this.SIN = sin; } } Since a SIN is required, I'd just create a constructor with a sin parameter, and make it read-only. However, with a Dapper (and probably any other ORM), I need to provide a parameterless constructor, and make all properties writeable. So now I have this: class User: IValidatableObject { public int Id { get; set; } public string SIN { get; set; } public string DisplayName { get; set; } public IEnumerable<ValidationResult> Validate(ValidationContext validationContext) { // implementation } } This seems.. can't really pick the word, a bad smell? A) I'm allowing to change properties that should not be changed ever after an object has been created (SIN, userid) B) Now I have to implement IValidatableObject or something like that to test those properties before updating them to db. So how do you go about it ?

    Read the article

  • Using Custom Validation with LINQ to SQL in an ASP.Net application

    - by nikolaosk
    A friend of mine is working in an ASP.Net application and using SQL Server as the backend. He also uses LINQ to SQL as his data access layer technology. I know that Entity framework is Microsoft's main data access technology. All the money and resources are available for the evolution of Entity Framework. If you want to read some interesting links regarding LINQ to SQL roadmap and future have a look at the following links. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/adonet/archive/2008/10/29/update-on-linq-to-sql-and...(read more)

    Read the article

  • DDD and validation of aggregate root

    - by Mik378
    Suppose an aggregate root : MailConfiguration (wrapping an AddressPart object). The AddressPart object is a simple immutable value object with some fields like senderAdress, recipentAddress (to make example simple). As being an invariant object, AddressPart should logically wrap its own Validator (by the way of external a kind of AddressValidator for respecting Single Responsibility Principle) I read some articles that claimed an aggregateRoot must validate its 'children'. However, if we follow this principle, one could create an AddressPart with an uncohesive/invalid state. What are your opinion? Should I move the collaborator AddressValidator(used in constructor so in order to validate immediately the cohesion of an AddressPart) from AddressPart and assign it to aggregateRoot (MailConfiguration) ?

    Read the article

  • Checking validation of entries in a Sudoku game written in Java

    - by Mico0
    I'm building a simple Sudoku game in Java which is based on a matrix (an array[9][9]) and I need to validate my board state according to these rules: all rows have 1-9 digits all columns have 1-9 digits. each 3x3 grid has 1-9 digits. This function should be efficient as possible for example if first case is not valid I believe there's no need to check other cases and so on (correct me if I'm wrong). When I tried doing this I had a conflict. Should I do one large for loop and inside check columns and row (in two other loops) or should I do each test separately and verify every case by it's own? (Please don't suggest too advanced solutions with other class/object helpers.) This is what I thought about: Main validating function (which I want pretty clean): public boolean testBoard() { boolean isBoardValid = false; if (validRows()) { if (validColumns()) { if (validCube()) { isBoardValid = true; } } } return isBoardValid; } Different methods to do the specific test such as: private boolean validRows() { int rowsDigitsCount = 0; for (int num = 1; num <= 9; num++) { boolean foundDigit = false; for (int row = 0; (row < board.length) && (!foundDigit); row++) { for (int col = 0; col < board[row].length; col++) { if (board[row][col] == num) { rowsDigitsCount++; foundDigit = true; break; } } } } return rowsDigitsCount == 9 ? true : false; } I don't know if I should keep doing tests separately because it looks like I'm duplicating my code.

    Read the article

  • Is server validation necessary with client-side validators?

    - by peroija
    I recently created a .net web app that used over 200 custom validators on one page. I wrote code for both ClientValidationFunction and OnServerValidate which results in a ton of repetitive code. My sql statements are parameterized, I have functions that pull data from input fields and validates them before passing to the sql statements or stored procedures. And the javascript validates the fields before the page submits. So essentially the data is clean and valid before it even hits the OnServerValidate and clean after it anyways due to the aforementioned steps. This makes me question, is OnServerValidate really needed when I validate on the clientside?

    Read the article

  • JQuery Validation [migrated]

    - by user41354
    Im trying to get my form to validate...so basically its working, but a little bit too well, I have two text boxes, one is a start date, the other an end date in the format of mm/dd/yyyy if the start date is greater than the end date...there is an error if the end date is less than the start date...there is an error if the start date is less than today's date...there is an error The only thing is when I correct the error, the error warning is still there...here is my code: dates.change(function () { var testDate = $(this).val(); var otherDate = dates.not(this).val(); var now = new Date(); now.setHours(0, 0, 0, 0); // Pass Dates if (testDate != '' && new Date(testDate) < now) { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* Dates cannot be earlier than today.'); isValid = false; return; } // Required Text if ($(this).hasClass("FromCal") && testDate == '') { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* Required'); isValid = false; return; } // Validate Date if (!isValidDate(testDate)) { // $(this).addClass('validation_error_input'); addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* Invalid Date'); isValid = false; return; } else { // $(this).removeClass('validation_error_input'); removeError($(this)); if (!dates.not(this).hasClass('validation_error_input')) $('.flightDateError').text(' '); } // Validate Date Ranges if ($(this).val() != '' && dates.not(this).val != '') { if ($(this).hasClass("FromCal")) { if (new Date(testDate) > new Date(otherDate)) { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* Start date must be earlier than end date.'); isValid = false; return; } } else{ if (new Date(testDate) < new Date(otherDate)) { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* End date must be later than start date.'); return; } } } }); The main Issue is this part, I believe // Validate Date Ranges if ($(this).val() != '' && dates.not(this).val != '') { if ($(this).hasClass("FromCal")) { if (new Date(testDate) > new Date(otherDate)) { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* Start date must be earlier than end date.'); isValid = false; return; } } else{ if (new Date(testDate) < new Date(otherDate)) { addError($(this)); $('.flightDateError').text('* End date must be later than start date.'); return; } } } testDate is the start date otherDate is the end date Thanks in advanced, J

    Read the article

  • Javascript form validation on client side without server side - is it safe?

    - by Vitali Ponomar
    Supose I have some form with javascript client side validation and no server side validation. If user disable javascript in his browser there will no be submit button so he can not send me any data without js enabled. But I do not know is there any way to change my validation instructions from client browser so he could send me untrusted data and make some damage to my database. Thanks in advance and sorry for my (possibly) obvious question!!!

    Read the article

  • Understanding Request Validation in ASP.NET MVC 3

    - by imran_ku07
         Introduction:             A fact that you must always remember "never ever trust user inputs". An application that trusts user inputs may be easily vulnerable to XSS, XSRF, SQL Injection, etc attacks. XSS and XSRF are very dangerous attacks. So to mitigate these attacks ASP.NET introduced request validation in ASP.NET 1.1. During request validation, ASP.NET will throw HttpRequestValidationException: 'A potentially dangerous XXX value was detected from the client', if he found, < followed by an exclamation(like <!) or < followed by the letters a through z(like <s) or & followed by a pound sign(like &#123) as a part of query string, posted form and cookie collection. In ASP.NET 4.0, request validation becomes extensible. This means that you can extend request validation. Also in ASP.NET 4.0, by default request validation is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. ASP.NET MVC 3 moves one step further by making request validation granular. This allows you to disable request validation for some properties of a model while maintaining request validation for all other cases. In this article I will show you the use of request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Then I will briefly explain the internal working of granular request validation.       Description:             First of all create a new ASP.NET MVC 3 application. Then create a simple model class called MyModel,     public class MyModel { public string Prop1 { get; set; } public string Prop2 { get; set; } }             Then just update the index action method as follows,   public ActionResult Index(MyModel p) { return View(); }             Now just run this application. You will find that everything works just fine. Now just append this query string ?Prop1=<s to the url of this application, you will get the HttpRequestValidationException exception.           Now just decorate the Index action method with [ValidateInputAttribute(false)],   [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index(MyModel p) { return View(); }             Run this application again with same query string. You will find that your application run without any unhandled exception.           Up to now, there is nothing new in ASP.NET MVC 3 because ValidateInputAttribute was present in the previous versions of ASP.NET MVC. Any problem with this approach? Yes there is a problem with this approach. The problem is that now users can send html for both Prop1 and Prop2 properties and a lot of developers are not aware of it. This means that now everyone can send html with both parameters(e.g, ?Prop1=<s&Prop2=<s). So ValidateInput attribute does not gives you the guarantee that your application is safe to XSS or XSRF. This is the reason why ASP.NET MVC team introduced granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Let's see this feature.           Remove [ValidateInputAttribute(false)] on Index action and update MyModel class as follows,   public class MyModel { [AllowHtml] public string Prop1 { get; set; } public string Prop2 { get; set; } }             Note that AllowHtml attribute is only decorated on Prop1 property. Run this application again with ?Prop1=<s query string. You will find that your application run just fine. Run this application again with ?Prop1=<s&Prop2=<s query string, you will get HttpRequestValidationException exception. This shows that the granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3 only allows users to send html for properties decorated with AllowHtml attribute.            Sometimes you may need to access Request.QueryString or Request.Form directly. You may change your code as follows,   [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index() { var prop1 = Request.QueryString["Prop1"]; return View(); }             Run this application again, you will get the HttpRequestValidationException exception again even you have [ValidateInput(false)] on your Index action. The reason is that Request flags are still not set to unvalidate. I will explain this later. For making this work you need to use Unvalidated extension method,     public ActionResult Index() { var q = Request.Unvalidated().QueryString; var prop1 = q["Prop1"]; return View(); }             Unvalidated extension method is defined in System.Web.Helpers namespace . So you need to add using System.Web.Helpers; in this class file. Run this application again, your application run just fine.             There you have it. If you are not curious to know the internal working of granular request validation then you can skip next paragraphs completely. If you are interested then carry on reading.             Create a new ASP.NET MVC 2 application, then open global.asax.cs file and the following lines,     protected void Application_BeginRequest() { var q = Request.QueryString; }             Then make the Index action method as,    [ValidateInput(false)] public ActionResult Index(string id) { return View(); }             Please note that the Index action method contains a parameter and this action method is decorated with [ValidateInput(false)]. Run this application again, but now with ?id=<s query string, you will get HttpRequestValidationException exception at Application_BeginRequest method. Now just add the following entry in web.config,   <httpRuntime requestValidationMode="2.0"/>             Now run this application again. This time your application will run just fine. Now just see the following quote from ASP.NET 4 Breaking Changes,   In ASP.NET 4, by default, request validation is enabled for all requests, because it is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. As a result, request validation applies to requests for all ASP.NET resources, not just .aspx page requests. This includes requests such as Web service calls and custom HTTP handlers. Request validation is also active when custom HTTP modules are reading the contents of an HTTP request.             This clearly state that request validation is enabled before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request. For understanding what does enabled means here, we need to see HttpRequest.ValidateInput, HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form methods/properties in System.Web assembly. Here is the implementation of HttpRequest.ValidateInput, HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form methods/properties in System.Web assembly,     public NameValueCollection Form { get { if (this._form == null) { this._form = new HttpValueCollection(); if (this._wr != null) { this.FillInFormCollection(); } this._form.MakeReadOnly(); } if (this._flags[2]) { this._flags.Clear(2); this.ValidateNameValueCollection(this._form, RequestValidationSource.Form); } return this._form; } } public NameValueCollection QueryString { get { if (this._queryString == null) { this._queryString = new HttpValueCollection(); if (this._wr != null) { this.FillInQueryStringCollection(); } this._queryString.MakeReadOnly(); } if (this._flags[1]) { this._flags.Clear(1); this.ValidateNameValueCollection(this._queryString, RequestValidationSource.QueryString); } return this._queryString; } } public void ValidateInput() { if (!this._flags[0x8000]) { this._flags.Set(0x8000); this._flags.Set(1); this._flags.Set(2); this._flags.Set(4); this._flags.Set(0x40); this._flags.Set(0x80); this._flags.Set(0x100); this._flags.Set(0x200); this._flags.Set(8); } }             The above code indicates that HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will only validate the querystring and form collection if certain flags are set. These flags are automatically set if you call HttpRequest.ValidateInput method. Now run the above application again(don't forget to append ?id=<s query string in the url) with the same settings(i.e, requestValidationMode="2.0" setting in web.config and Application_BeginRequest method in global.asax.cs), your application will run just fine. Now just update the Application_BeginRequest method as,   protected void Application_BeginRequest() { Request.ValidateInput(); var q = Request.QueryString; }             Note that I am calling Request.ValidateInput method prior to use Request.QueryString property. ValidateInput method will internally set certain flags(discussed above). These flags will then tells the Request.QueryString (and Request.Form) property that validate the query string(or form) when user call Request.QueryString(or Request.Form) property. So running this application again with ?id=<s query string will throw HttpRequestValidationException exception. Now I hope it is clear to you that what does requestValidationMode do. It just tells the ASP.NET that not invoke the Request.ValidateInput method internally before the BeginRequest phase of an HTTP request if requestValidationMode is set to a value less than 4.0 in web.config. Here is the implementation of HttpRequest.ValidateInputIfRequiredByConfig method which will prove this statement(Don't be confused with HttpRequest and Request. Request is the property of HttpRequest class),    internal void ValidateInputIfRequiredByConfig() { ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... if (httpRuntime.RequestValidationMode >= VersionUtil.Framework40) { this.ValidateInput(); } }              Hopefully the above discussion will clear you how requestValidationMode works in ASP.NET 4. It is also interesting to note that both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form only throws the exception when you access them first time. Any subsequent access to HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will not throw any exception. Continuing with the above example, just update Application_BeginRequest method in global.asax.cs file as,   protected void Application_BeginRequest() { try { var q = Request.QueryString; var f = Request.Form; } catch//swallow this exception { } var q1 = Request.QueryString; var f1 = Request.Form; }             Without setting requestValidationMode to 2.0 and without decorating ValidateInput attribute on Index action, your application will work just fine because both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form will clear their flags after reading HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form for the first time(see the implementation of HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form above).           Now let's see ASP.NET MVC 3 granular request validation internal working. First of all we need to see type of HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form properties. Both HttpRequest.QueryString and HttpRequest.Form properties are of type NameValueCollection which is inherited from the NameObjectCollectionBase class. NameObjectCollectionBase class contains _entriesArray, _entriesTable, NameObjectEntry.Key and NameObjectEntry.Value fields which granular request validation uses internally. In addition granular request validation also uses _queryString, _form and _flags fields, ValidateString method and the Indexer of HttpRequest class. Let's see when and how granular request validation uses these fields.           Create a new ASP.NET MVC 3 application. Then put a breakpoint at Application_BeginRequest method and another breakpoint at HomeController.Index method. Now just run this application. When the break point inside Application_BeginRequest method hits then add the following expression in quick watch window, System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString. You will see the following screen,                                              Now Press F5 so that the second breakpoint inside HomeController.Index method hits. When the second breakpoint hits then add the following expression in quick watch window again, System.Web.HttpContext.Current.Request.QueryString. You will see the following screen,                            First screen shows that _entriesTable field is of type System.Collections.Hashtable and _entriesArray field is of type System.Collections.ArrayList during the BeginRequest phase of the HTTP request. While the second screen shows that _entriesTable type is changed to Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.LazilyValidatingHashtable and _entriesArray type is changed to Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.LazilyValidatingArrayList during executing the Index action method. In addition to these members, ASP.NET MVC 3 also perform some operation on _flags, _form, _queryString and other members of HttpRuntime class internally. This shows that ASP.NET MVC 3 performing some operation on the members of HttpRequest class for making granular request validation possible.           Both LazilyValidatingArrayList and LazilyValidatingHashtable classes are defined in the Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly. You may wonder why their name starts with Lazily. The fact is that now with ASP.NET MVC 3, request validation will be performed lazily. In simple words, Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly is now taking the responsibility for request validation from System.Web assembly. See the below screens. The first screen depicting HttpRequestValidationException exception in ASP.NET MVC 2 application while the second screen showing HttpRequestValidationException exception in ASP.NET MVC 3 application.   In MVC 2:                 In MVC 3:                          The stack trace of the second screenshot shows that Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly (instead of System.Web assembly) is now performing request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. Now you may ask: where Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly is performing some operation on the members of HttpRequest class. There are at least two places where the Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly performing some operation , Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.GranularValidationReflectionUtil.GetInstance method and Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure.DynamicValidationHelper.ValidationUtility.CollectionReplacer.ReplaceCollection method, Here is the implementation of these methods,   private static GranularValidationReflectionUtil GetInstance() { try { if (DynamicValidationShimReflectionUtil.Instance != null) { return null; } GranularValidationReflectionUtil util = new GranularValidationReflectionUtil(); Type containingType = typeof(NameObjectCollectionBase); string fieldName = "_entriesArray"; bool isStatic = false; Type fieldType = typeof(ArrayList); FieldInfo fieldInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(containingType, fieldName, isStatic, fieldType); util._del_get_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesArray = MakeFieldGetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, ArrayList>(fieldInfo); util._del_set_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesArray = MakeFieldSetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, ArrayList>(fieldInfo); Type type6 = typeof(NameObjectCollectionBase); string str2 = "_entriesTable"; bool flag2 = false; Type type7 = typeof(Hashtable); FieldInfo info2 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type6, str2, flag2, type7); util._del_get_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesTable = MakeFieldGetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, Hashtable>(info2); util._del_set_NameObjectCollectionBase_entriesTable = MakeFieldSetterFunc<NameObjectCollectionBase, Hashtable>(info2); Type targetType = CommonAssemblies.System.GetType("System.Collections.Specialized.NameObjectCollectionBase+NameObjectEntry"); Type type8 = targetType; string str3 = "Key"; bool flag3 = false; Type type9 = typeof(string); FieldInfo info3 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type8, str3, flag3, type9); util._del_get_NameObjectEntry_Key = MakeFieldGetterFunc<string>(targetType, info3); Type type10 = targetType; string str4 = "Value"; bool flag4 = false; Type type11 = typeof(object); FieldInfo info4 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type10, str4, flag4, type11); util._del_get_NameObjectEntry_Value = MakeFieldGetterFunc<object>(targetType, info4); util._del_set_NameObjectEntry_Value = MakeFieldSetterFunc(targetType, info4); Type type12 = typeof(HttpRequest); string methodName = "ValidateString"; bool flag5 = false; Type[] argumentTypes = new Type[] { typeof(string), typeof(string), typeof(RequestValidationSource) }; Type returnType = typeof(void); MethodInfo methodInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type12, methodName, flag5, argumentTypes, returnType); util._del_validateStringCallback = CommonReflectionUtil.MakeFastCreateDelegate<HttpRequest, ValidateStringCallback>(methodInfo); Type type = CommonAssemblies.SystemWeb.GetType("System.Web.HttpValueCollection"); util._del_HttpValueCollection_ctor = CommonReflectionUtil.MakeFastNewObject<Func<NameValueCollection>>(type); Type type14 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str6 = "_form"; bool flag6 = false; Type type15 = type; FieldInfo info6 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type14, str6, flag6, type15); util._del_get_HttpRequest_form = MakeFieldGetterFunc<HttpRequest, NameValueCollection>(info6); util._del_set_HttpRequest_form = MakeFieldSetterFunc(typeof(HttpRequest), info6); Type type16 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str7 = "_queryString"; bool flag7 = false; Type type17 = type; FieldInfo info7 = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type16, str7, flag7, type17); util._del_get_HttpRequest_queryString = MakeFieldGetterFunc<HttpRequest, NameValueCollection>(info7); util._del_set_HttpRequest_queryString = MakeFieldSetterFunc(typeof(HttpRequest), info7); Type type3 = CommonAssemblies.SystemWeb.GetType("System.Web.Util.SimpleBitVector32"); Type type18 = typeof(HttpRequest); string str8 = "_flags"; bool flag8 = false; Type type19 = type3; FieldInfo flagsFieldInfo = CommonReflectionUtil.FindField(type18, str8, flag8, type19); Type type20 = type3; string str9 = "get_Item"; bool flag9 = false; Type[] typeArray4 = new Type[] { typeof(int) }; Type type21 = typeof(bool); MethodInfo itemGetter = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type20, str9, flag9, typeArray4, type21); Type type22 = type3; string str10 = "set_Item"; bool flag10 = false; Type[] typeArray6 = new Type[] { typeof(int), typeof(bool) }; Type type23 = typeof(void); MethodInfo itemSetter = CommonReflectionUtil.FindMethod(type22, str10, flag10, typeArray6, type23); MakeRequestValidationFlagsAccessors(flagsFieldInfo, itemGetter, itemSetter, out util._del_BitVector32_get_Item, out util._del_BitVector32_set_Item); return util; } catch { return null; } } private static void ReplaceCollection(HttpContext context, FieldAccessor<NameValueCollection> fieldAccessor, Func<NameValueCollection> propertyAccessor, Action<NameValueCollection> storeInUnvalidatedCollection, RequestValidationSource validationSource, ValidationSourceFlag validationSourceFlag) { NameValueCollection originalBackingCollection; ValidateStringCallback validateString; SimpleValidateStringCallback simpleValidateString; Func<NameValueCollection> getActualCollection; Action<NameValueCollection> makeCollectionLazy; HttpRequest request = context.Request; Func<bool> getValidationFlag = delegate { return _reflectionUtil.GetRequestValidationFlag(request, validationSourceFlag); }; Func<bool> func = delegate { return !getValidationFlag(); }; Action<bool> setValidationFlag = delegate (bool value) { _reflectionUtil.SetRequestValidationFlag(request, validationSourceFlag, value); }; if ((fieldAccessor.Value != null) && func()) { storeInUnvalidatedCollection(fieldAccessor.Value); } else { originalBackingCollection = fieldAccessor.Value; validateString = _reflectionUtil.MakeValidateStringCallback(context.Request); simpleValidateString = delegate (string value, string key) { if (((key == null) || !key.StartsWith("__", StringComparison.Ordinal)) && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(value)) { validateString(value, key, validationSource); } }; getActualCollection = delegate { fieldAccessor.Value = originalBackingCollection; bool flag = getValidationFlag(); setValidationFlag(false); NameValueCollection col = propertyAccessor(); setValidationFlag(flag); storeInUnvalidatedCollection(new NameValueCollection(col)); return col; }; makeCollectionLazy = delegate (NameValueCollection col) { simpleValidateString(col[null], null); LazilyValidatingArrayList array = new LazilyValidatingArrayList(_reflectionUtil.GetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(col), simpleValidateString); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(col, array); LazilyValidatingHashtable table = new LazilyValidatingHashtable(_reflectionUtil.GetNameObjectCollectionEntriesTable(col), simpleValidateString); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesTable(col, table); }; Func<bool> hasValidationFired = func; Action disableValidation = delegate { setValidationFlag(false); }; Func<int> fillInActualFormContents = delegate { NameValueCollection values = getActualCollection(); makeCollectionLazy(values); return values.Count; }; DeferredCountArrayList list = new DeferredCountArrayList(hasValidationFired, disableValidation, fillInActualFormContents); NameValueCollection target = _reflectionUtil.NewHttpValueCollection(); _reflectionUtil.SetNameObjectCollectionEntriesArray(target, list); fieldAccessor.Value = target; } }             Hopefully the above code will help you to understand the internal working of granular request validation. It is also important to note that Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly invokes HttpRequest.ValidateInput method internally. For further understanding please see Microsoft.Web.Infrastructure assembly code. Finally you may ask: at which stage ASP NET MVC 3 will invoke these methods. You will find this answer by looking at the following method source,   Unvalidated extension method for HttpRequest class defined in System.Web.Helpers.Validation class. System.Web.Mvc.MvcHandler.ProcessRequestInit method. System.Web.Mvc.ControllerActionInvoker.ValidateRequest method. System.Web.WebPages.WebPageHttpHandler.ProcessRequestInternal method.       Summary:             ASP.NET helps in preventing XSS attack using a feature called request validation. In this article, I showed you how you can use granular request validation in ASP.NET MVC 3. I explain you the internal working of  granular request validation. Hope you will enjoy this article too.   SyntaxHighlighter.all()

    Read the article

  • MVC2 ValidationSummary and Client side Validation

    - by Raj Aththanayake
    Hi I want to have the ValidationSummary errors displayed during Client Side validation. Currently the validation messages are only appears next to the field during client side validation. I use…. MicrosoftAjax.js MicrosoftMvcAjax.js MicrosoftMvcValidation.js as my client side libraries. There is a solution for jQuery Validation Library which is in the thread… http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1724790/asp-net-mvc-validationsummary-for-client-side-validation Is there an easy way to do this? I used had xVal working DataAnnotation and it was very easy enable client side validation for the validation summary. E.g <%= Html.ClientSideValidation().UseValidationSummary("validationSummary", “Validation Errors”)% Is there way to do this in MVC2 using MicrosoftAjax?

    Read the article

  • Excel VBA: can delete validation but not add new one

    - by user1882965
    My code is as follows If Cells(Target.Row, 2) = "" And (Cells(Target.Row, 3) = "" Or Cells(Target.Row, 3) = "") Then Sheets("MySheet").Activate Cells(Target.Row, 3).Activate ActiveCell.Validation.Delete If (Cells(Target.Row, 2) = "Type A") Then ActiveCell.Validation.Add Type:=xlValidateList, AlertStyle:=xlValidAlertStop, Operator:=xlBetween, Formula1:="=AvailableVersions" ElseIf (Cells(Target.Row, 2) = "Type B") Then ActiveCell.Validation.Delete Else ActiveCell.Validation.Add Type:=xlValidateWholeNumber, AlertStyle:=xlValidAlertInformation, Formula1:="0", Formula2:="9999999" End If End If So the issue I am having comes whenever I reach ActiveCell.Validation.Add Run Time Error '1004': Application-defined or object-defined error Not a very helpful error, and also this occurs with both number and list validation type, so I am sure it is not an issue with the list itself which has workbook level scope anyway. It never occurs on ActiveCell.Validation.Delete which I find weird? I have been all over google trying to find a solution, and most suggest that it is caused by running dynamic validation code from a button which hogs focus despite the Activate call, but I am running on sheet change event rather than on button press so I don't think this is my issue - any ideas? I've wasted basically a whole day on this! :(

    Read the article

  • System testing - making sure the system conforms to specification. Validation?

    - by user970696
    After weeks of research I have nearly completed my thesis, yet I am unable to clear up my confusion contained in all previous threads here (and in many books): During system testing, we check the system function against system analysis (functional system design) - but that would fit to a definition of verification according to many books. But I follow ISO12207, which considers all testing as validation (making sure work product meets requirement for intended use). How can I justify that unit testing or system testing is validation, even though when I check it against specification? Which fullfils the definiton of verification? When testing that e.g. "Save button" works, is it validation? This picture shows my understanding of V&V, so different from many other sources, including ISTQB etc. Essential problem I have is that a book using the same picture also states on another place that: test activities in the area of validation are usability, alpha and beta testing. For verification, testable system requirements are defined whose correct implementation can be tested through system tests. Isn't that the opposite of what the picture says? Most books present the following picture, where validation is just making sure that customer needs are satisfied. Mind you that according to ISO, validation activity is testing.

    Read the article

  • How far should one take e-mail address validation?

    - by Mike Tomasello
    I'm wondering how far people should take the validation of e-mail address. My field is primarily web-development, but this applies anywhere. I've seen a few approaches: simply checking if there is an "@" present, which is dead simply but of course not that reliable. a more complex regex test for standard e-mail formats a full regex against RFC 2822 - the problem with this is that often an e-mail address might be valid but it is probably not what the user meant DNS validation SMTP validation As many people might know (but many don't), e-mail addresses can have a lot of strange variation that most people don't usually consider (see RFC 2822 3.4.1), but you have to think about the goals of your validation: are you simply trying to ensure that an e-mail address can be sent to an address, or that it is what the user probably meant to put in (which is unlikely in a lot of the more obscure cases of otherwise 'valid' addresses). An option I've considered is simply giving a warning with a more esoteric address but still allowing the request to go through, but this does add more complexity to a form and most users are likely to be confused. While DNS validation / SMTP validation seem like no-brainers, I foresee problems where the DNS server/SMTP server is temporarily down and a user is unable to register somewhere, or the user's SMTP server doesn't support the required features. How might some experienced developers out here handle this? Are there any other approaches than the ones I've listed? Edit: I completely forgot the most obvious of all, sending a confirmation e-mail! Thanks to answerers for pointing that one out. Yes, this one is pretty foolproof, but it does require extra hassle on the part of everyone involved. The user has to fetch some e-mail, and the developer needs to remember user data before they're even confirmed as valid.

    Read the article

  • OnSelectedIndexChange only fires on second click when using custom page validation script

    - by Kris P
    Okay.. this is hard to explain, so here it goes. I have an update panel which contains a number of controls. The update panel is triggered by the OnSelectedIndexChanged event of a dropdownlist called: ddlUSCitizenshipStatus. It works as expected when I selected a new item. However, if I leave ddlUSCitizenshipStatus with the default value, and then click "submit" button on the page, the requiredfieldvalidators say there is an error on ddlUSCitizenshipStatus (which it should, as I never selected a value). So I then choose a value, the error message goes away on ddlUSCitizenshipStatus, however the updatepanel does not refresh. I've debugged this locally and the OnSelectedIndexChanged event for ddlUSCitizenshipStatus does not fire. If I choose an item in the ddlUSCitizenshipStatus list a second time, the OnSelectedIndexChanged server event fires and the update panel refreshes and works as expected. The issue is, I have to select an item in ddlUSCitizenshipStatus twice, after failed validation, before the updatepanel it's sitting in updates. The submit button on the page looks like this: <asp:LinkButton ID="btnSubmitPage1" runat="server" CssClass="continueButton" OnClick="btnSubmitPage1_Click" CausesValidation="true" OnClientClick="javascript: return ValidatePage();" /> If I remove my custom OnClientClick script, making the submit button look like this: <asp:LinkButton ID="btnSubmitPage1" runat="server" CssClass="continueButton" OnClick="btnSubmitPage1_Click" CausesValidation="true" ValidationGroup="valGrpAdditionalInformation" /> The dropdownlist, update panel, and reguiredfieldvalidator all work as expected. However, I need to run that custom "ValidatePage()" script when the button is clicked. Below is what my ValidatePage script looks like. I've been troubleshooting this for more hours than I can count.... I hope someone is able to help me. Please let me know if you can figure out why ddlUSCitizenshipStatus doesn't update the updatepanel until the second click after a failed validation. function ValidatePage() { var blnDoPostBack = true; if (typeof(Page_ClientValidate) == 'function' ) { //Client side validation can occur, so lets do it. //Validate each validation group. for( var i = 0; i < Page_ValidationSummaries.length; i++ ) Page_ClientValidate( Page_ValidationSummaries[i].validationGroup.toString() ); //Validate every validation control on the page. for (var i = 0; i < Page_Validators.length; i++) ValidatorValidate(Page_Validators[i]); //Figure out which validation groups have errors, store a list of these validation groups in an array. var aryValGrpsWithErrors = []; for( var i = 0; i < Page_Validators.length; i++ ) { if( !Page_Validators[i].isvalid ) { //This particular validator has thrown an error. //Remeber to not do a postback, as we were able to catch this validation error client side. blnDoPostBack = false; //If we haven't already registered the validation group this erroring validation control is a part of, do so now. if( aryValGrpsWithErrors.indexOf( Page_Validators[i].validationGroup.toString() ) == -1 ) aryValGrpsWithErrors[aryValGrpsWithErrors.length++] = Page_Validators[i].validationGroup.toString(); } } //Now display every validation summary that has !isvalid validation controls in it. for( var i = 0; i < Page_ValidationSummaries.length; i++ ) { if( aryValGrpsWithErrors.indexOf( Page_ValidationSummaries[i].validationGroup.toString() ) != -1 ) { Page_ValidationSummaries[i].style.display = ""; document.getElementById( Page_ValidationSummaries[i].id.toString() + "Wrapper" ).style.display = ""; } else { //The current validation summary does not have any error messages in it, so make sure it's hidden. Page_ValidationSummaries[i].style.display = "none"; document.getElementById( Page_ValidationSummaries[i].id.toString() + "Wrapper" ).style.display = "none"; } } } return blnDoPostBack; }

    Read the article

  • Excel 2010 data validation warning (compatibility mode)

    - by Madmanguruman
    We have some legacy worksheets that were created in Excel 2003, which are used by LabVIEW-based test automation software. The current LabVIEW software can only handle the legacy .xls format, so we're forced to keep these worksheets as-is for the time being. We've migrated to Office 2010 and when working with these worksheets, I see this warning: "The following features in this workbook are not supported by earlier versions of Excel. These features may be lost or degraded when you save this workbook in the currently selected file format. Click Continue to save the workbook anyway. To keep all of your features, click Cancel and then save the file in one of the new file formats." "Significant loss of functionality" "One or more cells in this workbook contain data validation rules which refer to values on other worksheets. These data validation rules will not be saved." When I click 'Find', some cells that do indeed have validation rules are highlighted, but those rules are all on the same worksheet! We're using simple list-based validation, with some cells off to the side containing the valid values (for example, cell B4 has a List with Source "=$D$4:$E$4") This makes no sense to me whatsoever. One, the workbook was created in Excel 2003, so obviously we couldn't implement a feature that doesn't exist. Secondly, the modifications we're making don't involve changing the validation rules at all. Thirdly, the complaint that Excel is making is incorrect! All of the rules are on the same worksheet as the target. As if the story wasn't bizarre enough: I went ahead and saved the worksheet with Excel 2010. I then went to an old computer back in the lab and opened the document with Excel 2003. Guess what - the validations were untouched! My questions are: is this a legitimate bug in Excel 2010, or is this some exotic error in the legacy .xls worksheet that is confusing the heck out of Excel 2010? Has anyone else observed this issue working in compatibility mode?

    Read the article

  • Performing both client side and server side validation using jQuery and CodeIgniter

    - by Vasu
    What is the right way of doing both client side and server side validation using jQuery and CodeIgniter? I am using the jQuery form plugin for form submit. I would like to use jQuery validation plugin (http://docs.jquery.com/Plugins/Validation) for client side validation and CodeIgniter form validation on the server side. However the two don't seem to gel together (or I am unable to get my head around it). Can someone help please? Whether its a client side validation or server side validation, the user should see consistent UI displaying error messages next to the input fields.

    Read the article

  • For an ORM supporting data validation, should constraints be enforced in the database as well?

    - by Ramnique Singh
    I have always applied constraints at the database level in addition to my (ActiveRecord) models. But I've been wondering if this is really required? A little background I recently had to unit test a basic automated timestamp generation method for a model. Normally, the test would create an instance of the model and save it without validation. But there are other required fields that aren't nullable at the in the table definition, meaning I cant save the instance even if I skip the ActiveRecord validation. So I'm thinking if I should remove such constraints from the db itself, and let the ORM handle them? Possible advantages if I skip constraints in db, imo - Can modify a validation rule in the model, without having to migrate the database. Can skip validation in testing. Possible disadvantage? If its possible that ORM validation fails or is bypassed, howsoever, the database does not check for constraints. What do you think? EDIT In this case, I'm using the Yii Framework, which generates the model from the database, hence database rules are generated also (though I could always write them post-generation myself too).

    Read the article

  • Play Framework custom validation errors with multiple String parameters

    - by Mark
    I'm trying to set a custom validation error with multiple params in Play!, but it seems like my validation parameters are not rendered correctly. I have defined in messages: validation.customerror=This is first param "%s", and this is the second "%s" The in my code I execute: validation.addError("","validation.customerror", "FIRST", "SECOND"); And I get: This is first param "", and this is the second "FIRST" Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to perform duplicate key validation using entlib (or DataAnnotations), MVC, and Repository pattern

    - by olivehour
    I have a set of ASP.NET 4 projects that culminate in an MVC (3 RC2) app. The solution uses Unity and EntLib Validation for cross-cutting dependency injection and validation. Both are working great for injecting repository and service layer implementations. However, I can't figure out how to do duplicate key validation. For example, when a user registers, we want to make sure they don't pick a UserID that someone else is already using. For this type of validation, the validating object must have a repository reference... or some other way to get an IQueryable / IEnumerable reference to check against other rows already in the DB. What I have is a UserMetadata class that has all of the property setters and getters for a user, along with all of the appropriate DataAnnotations and EntLib Validation attributes. There is also a UserEntity class implemented using EF4 POCO Entity Generator templates. The UserEntity depends on UserMetadata, because it has a MetadataTypeAttribute. I also have a UserViewModel class that has the same exact MetadataType attribute. This way, I can apply the same validation rules, via attributes, to both the entity and viewmodel. There are no concrete references to the Repository classes whatsoever. All repositories are injected using Unity. There is also a service layer that gets dependency injection. In the MVC project, service layer implementation classes are injected into the Controller classes (the controller classes only contain service layer interface references). Unity then injects the Repository implementations into the service layer classes (service classes also only contain interface references). I've experimented with the DataAnnotations CustomValidationAttribute in the metadata class. The problem with this is the validation method must be static, and the method cannot instantiate a repository implementation directly. My repository interface is IRepository, and I have only one single repository implementation class defined as EntityRepository for all domain objects. To instantiate a repository explicitly I would need to say new EntityRepository(), which would result in a circular dependency graph: UserMetadata [depends on] DuplicateUserIDValidator [depends on] UserEntity [depends on] UserMetadata. I've also tried creating a custom EntLib Validator along with a custom validation attribute. Here I don't have the same problem with a static method. I think I could get this to work if I could just figure out how to make Unity inject my EntityRepository into the validator class... which I can't. Right now, all of the validation code is in my Metadata class library, since that's where the custom validation attribute would go. Any ideas on how to perform validations that need to check against the current repository state? Can Unity be used to inject a dependency into a lower-layer class library?

    Read the article

  • Effective Data Validation

    - by John Conde
    What's an effective way to handle data validation, say, from a form submission? Originally I had a bunch of if statements that checked each value and collected invalid values in an array for later retrieval (and listing). // Store errors here $errors = array(); // Hypothetical check if a string is alphanumeric if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $fieldvalue)) { $errors[$fieldname] = 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'; } // etc... What I did next was create a class that handles various data validation scenarios and store the results in an internal array. After data validation was complete I would check to see if any errors occurred and handle accordingly: class Validation { private $errorList = array(); public function isAlphaNumeric($string, $field, $msg = '') { if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $string)) { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } } // more methods here public function creditCard($cardNumber, $field, $msg = '') { // Validate credit card number } // more methods here public function hasErrors() { return count($this->errorList); } } /* Client code */ $validate = new Validation(); $validate->isAlphaNumeric($fieldvalue1, $fieldname1, 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'); $validate->creditCard($fieldvalue2, $fieldname2, 'Please enter a valid credit card number'); if ($validate->hasErrors()) { // Handle as appropriate } Naturally it didn't take long before this class became bloated with the virtually unlimited types of data to be validated. What I'm doing now is using decorators to separate the different types of data into their own classes and call them only when needed leaving generic validations (i.e. isAlphaNumeric()) in the base class: class Validation { private $errorList = array(); public function isAlphaNumeric($string, $field, $msg = '') { if (!preg_match('/^[a-z\d]+$/i', $string)) { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } } // more generic methods here public function setError($field, $msg = '') { $this->errorList[$field] = $msg; } public function hasErrors() { return count($this->errorList); } } class ValidationCreditCard { protected $validate; public function __construct(Validation $validate) { $this->validate = $validate; } public function creditCard($cardNumber, $field, $msg = '') { // Do validation // ... // if there is an error $this->validate->setError($field, $msg); } // more methods here } /* Client code */ $validate = new Validation(); $validate->isAlphaNumeric($fieldvalue, $fieldname, 'Please only use letters and numbers for your street address'); $validateCC = new ValidationCreditCard($validate); $validateCC->creditCard($fieldvalue2, $fieldname2, 'Please enter a valid credit card number'); if ($validate->hasErrors()) { // Handle as appropriate } Am I on the right track? Or did I just complicate data validation more then I needed to?

    Read the article

  • Is Form validation and Business validation too much?

    - by Robert Cabri
    I've got this question about form validation and business validation. I see a lot of frameworks that use some sort of form validation library. You submit some values and the library validates the values from the form. If not ok it will show some errors on you screen. If all goes to plan the values will be set into domain objects. Here the values will be or, better said, should validated (again). Most likely the same validation in the validation library. I know 2 PHP frameworks having this kind of construction Zend/Kohana. When I look at programming and some principles like Don't Repeat Yourself (DRY) and single responsibility principle (SRP) this isn't a good way. As you can see it validates twice. Why not create domain objects that do the actual validation. Example: Form with username and email form is submitted. Values of the username field and the email field will be populated in 2 different Domain objects: Username and Email class Username {} class Email {} These objects validate their data and if not valid throw an exception. Do you agree? What do you think about this aproach? Is there a better way to implement validations? I'm confused about a lot of frameworks/developers handling this stuff. Are they all wrong or am I missing a point? Edit: I know there should also be client side kind of validation. This is a different ballgame in my Opinion. If You have some comments on this and a way to deal with this kind of stuff, please provide.

    Read the article

  • DRY Validation with MVC2

    - by Matthew
    Hi All, I'm trying to figure out how I can define validation rules for my domain objects in one single location within my application but have run in to a snag... Some background: My location has several parts: - Database - DAL - Business Logic Layer - SOAP API Layer - MVC website The MVC website accesses the database via the SOAP API, just as third parties would. We are using server and and client side validation on the MVC website as well as in the SOAP API Layer. To avoid having to manually write client side validation we are implementing strongly typed views in conjunction with the Html.TextBoxFor and Html.ValidationMessageFor HTML helpers, as shown in Step 3 here. We also create custom models for each form where one form takes input for multiple domain objects. This is where the problem begins, the HTML helpers read from the model for the data annotation validation attributes. In most cases our forms deal with multiple domain objects and you can't specify more than one type in the <%@Page ... Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage" % page directive. So we are forced to create a custom model class, which would mean duplicating validation attributes from the domain objects on to the model class. I've spent quite some time looking for workarounds to this, such has referencing the same MetadataType from both the domain class and the custom MVC models, but that won't work for several reasons: You can only specify one MetadataType attribute per class, so its a problem if a model references multiple domain objects, each with their own metadata type. The data annotation validation code throws an exception if the model class doesn't contain a property that is specified in the referenced MetadataType which is a problem with the model only deals with a subset of the properties for a given domain object. I've looked at other solutions as well but to no avail. If anyone has any ideas on how to achieve a single source for validation logic that would work across MVC client and server side validation functionality and other locations (such as my SOAP API) I would love to hear it! Thanks in advance, Matthew

    Read the article

  • Create combined client side and server side validation in Symfony2

    - by ausi
    I think it would be very useful to create client side form validation up on the symfony2 Form and Validator components. The best way to do this would be to pass the validation constraints to the form view. With that information it would be possible to make a template that renders a form field to something like this: <div> <label for="form_email">E-Mail</label> <input id="form_email" type="text" name="form[email]" value="" data-validation-constraints='["NotBlank":{},"MinLength":{"limit":6}]' /> </div> The JavaScript part then would be to find all <input> elements that have the data-validation-constraints attribute and create the correct validation for them. To pass the validation constraints to the form view i thought the best way would be to create a form type extension. That's the point of my Question: Is this the correct way? And how is this possible? At the Moment my form type extension looks like this: use Symfony\Component\Form\FormInterface; use Symfony\Component\Form\FormView; use Symfony\Component\Form\FormBuilder; class FieldTypeExtension extends \Symfony\Component\Form\AbstractTypeExtension{ public function getExtendedType(){ return 'field'; } public function buildView(FormView $view, FormInterface $form) { // at this point i didn't find a way to get the // validation constraints out of the $form // the `getAllValidationConstraints` here is just an example $view->set('validation_constraints', $form->getAllValidationConstraints()); } } How can i get all validation constraints applied to one form field out of the FormInterface object?

    Read the article

  • Define "Validation in the Model"

    - by sunwukung
    There have been a couple of discussions regarding the location of user input validation: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/659950/should-validation-be-done-in-form-objects-or-the-model http://stackoverflow.com/questions/134388/where-do-you-do-your-validation-model-controller-or-view These discussions were quite old, so I wanted to ask the question again to see if anyone had any fresh input. If not, I apologise in advance. If you come from the Validation in the Model camp - does Model mean OOP representation of data (i.e. Active Record/Data Mapper) as "Entity" (to borrow the DDD terminology) - in which case you would, I assume, want all Model classes to inherit common validation constraints. Or can these rules simply be part of a Service in the Model - i.e. a Validation service? For example, could you consider Zend_Form and it's validation classes part of the Model? The concept of a Domain Model does not appear to be limited to Entities, and so validation may not necessarily need to be confined to this Entities. It seems that you would require a lot of potentially superfluous handing of values and responses back and forth between forms and "Entities" - and in some instances you may not persist the data recieved from user input, or recieve it from user input at all.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >