Method Validator Ignores Null Values / Empty Strings

[homestar9]

While I was updating the documentation, I noticed the method validator ignores empty/null values. This puzzled me because the udf validator does not ignore empty/null values. I always thought the udf and method validators were similar and could be used interchangeably if you required a more complex function that you wanted to break out from the constraints struct.

Should we allow null/empty strings to pass through to the method and let it decide what to do about null values? In 95% of my udf validators I check for a null/empty value and return true, so maybe the method validator is the one doing it correctly? I see arguments for both approaches so I'm not sure what the best way to proceed is, so I would love some feedback/suggestions.

Method Validator:
https://github.com/coldbox-modules/cbvalidation/blob/0a8dbe8355cfbd4e20db90d0c3be9b2f592b6a2f/models/validators/MethodValidator.cfc#L36-L44

[lmajano]

I think it makes sense. Things get blurry for me amigo once you have so many validators

[homestar9]

Thanks @lmajano, so you recommend we leave them as is? Thus the method validator ignores nulls/empty, but the udf validator does not? Or do you propose we change them to be consistent?

[lmajano]

I propose we change them to be consistent. Luis F. Majano CEO Ortus Solutions, Corp www.ortussolutions.com ColdBox Platform: http://www.coldbox.org Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/3/731/483 Blog: http://www.luismajano.com IECFUG Manager: http://www.iecfug.com Social: twitter.com/lmajano facebook.com/lmajano

…

On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 10:23 PM Dave L ***@***.***> wrote: Thanks @lmajano <https://github.com/lmajano>, so you recommend we leave them as is? Therefore method ignores nulls/empty, but udf does not? Or do you propose we change them to be consistent? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#13 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABBPF5ZI5MV3I5A5XLXUATXLDD4HANCNFSM6AAAAAAZFMJLJM> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[homestar9]

Sounds good. I will run a few experiments and then create a PR. Stay tuned. :)

[homestar9]

Created a PR to handle null/empty values that developers can switch to if the UDF validator will treat nulls as valid.
coldbox-modules/cbvalidation#80

Developers should switch to using requiredIf. I added some additional functionality for passing a UDF/closure to that validator as well here: coldbox-modules/cbvalidation#79

I still feel uneasy about implementing the change to the UDF validator, however I can't deny that it does make it more consistent with other validators.