Is validation only good for requests with previous GET request?

2 views
Skip to first unread message

Shimi Kiviti

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 3:01:38 PM11/10/11
to Bowler Users
I want to use the validation for single requests, but it seems that
the validation process for this kind of requests returns blank body
with status 200
Am I missing something here?

Wille Faler

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 3:32:56 PM11/10/11
to bowler...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
Assuming you are doing a request that expects a regular html response, the framework will redirect you to your previous GET URL with the validation error messages available as a list to your template bound to the variable "validationErrors", which you can use to display the error messages.

What exactly is your scenario and what do you want to achieve?
It's possible if you can't use a previous GET request-url to display error messages, we may have to raise a defect or feature request to fix it, but I'd like to understand exactly what the scenario is so we can better fix it.

Regards
Wille Faler

Shimi Kiviti

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 3:53:14 PM11/10/11
to Bowler Users
My scenario is of someone following an "expired" link from another
website, email, bookmark...
But this can be any invalid request that comes from somewhere else so
there is no previous GET URL.
What I would like to do is to use the validationErrors in the view of
the current request. Or to be able to set the view that will display
the validationErrors

Shimi

On Nov 10, 10:32 pm, Wille Faler <wille.fa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Assuming you are doing a request that expects a regular html response, the
> framework will redirect you to your previous GET URL with the validation
> error messages available as a list to your template bound to the variable
> "validationErrors", which you can use to display the error messages.
>
> What exactly is your scenario and what do you want to achieve?
> It's possible if you can't use a previous GET request-url to display error
> messages, we may have to raise a defect or feature request to fix it, but
> I'd like to understand exactly what the scenario is so we can better fix it.
>
> Regards
> Wille Faler
>

Wille Faler

unread,
Nov 10, 2011, 4:13:10 PM11/10/11
to bowler...@googlegroups.com
Hi,
This is definitely a bug/unfortunate omission.
I have added this as an issue: https://github.com/wfaler/Bowler/issues/17
I'll try to fix it this weekend and publish it as a SNAPSHOT artifact so it becomes available quickly!

/ Wille
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages