I have a Rails ActiveModel with two fields date_from and date_to and I want the model to be valid when (and only when)
either of these fields or both are blank
date_from < date_to
In other words, the model should be invalid only when both fields are set but they're in the wrong order. In that case I also want both fields to be marked as invalid.
I tried with
validates :date_from, comparison: { less_than_or_equal_to: :date_to }, allow_blank: true
validates :date_to, comparison: { greater_than_or_equal_to: :date_from }, allow_blank: true
But that fails when exactly one of the fields is set with
#<ActiveModel::Error attribute=date_to, type=comparison of Date with nil failed, options={}>
How can I make the comparison validation pass when the referenced field is blank?
It can be done with two separate validates calls by adding a conditional check with if option
validates :date_from,
comparison: { less_than_or_equal_to: :date_to },
allow_blank: true,
if: :date_to # make sure `date_to` is not `nil`
validates :date_to,
comparison: { greater_than_or_equal_to: :date_from },
allow_blank: true,
if: :date_from
This will skip these validations if one of the dates is nil. When both dates are present it runs both validations and adds two separate errors, which may be not quite right, since it is essentially one error.
To make the intent of this validation more obvious, a validate method is a better fit
validate :date_from_is_less_than_date_to
def date_from_is_less_than_date_to
return unless date_from && date_to # valid if date(s) are missing
unless date_from < date_to
errors.add(:base, 'Date range is invalid')
# NOTE: to add errors to show on form fields
# errors.add(:date_from, 'must come before Date to')
# errors.add(:date_to, 'must come after Date from')
# NOTE: to add errors only for date that changed
# requires ActiveModel::Dirty
# errors.add(:date_from, 'must come before Date to') if date_from_changed?
# errors.add(:date_to, 'must come after Date from') if date_to_changed?
end
end
Related
Model Plan has a jsonb column :per_unit_quantities_configuration . It is a hash with 3 keys/values pairs, min, max and step.
class Plan < ApplicationRecord
store_accessor :per_unit_quantities_configuration, :min, :max, :step, prefix: true
end
I have validations in place to prevent awkward configurations and/or infinite loops building an array of options based on those configuration settings.
First, I cast the values to from string to float before_validation
before_validation :cast_per_unit_quantities_config_values
def cast_per_unit_quantities_config_values
return unless per_unit_quantities_configuration_changed?
self.per_unit_quantities_configuration_min = per_unit_quantities_configuration_min&.to_f
self.per_unit_quantities_configuration_max = per_unit_quantities_configuration_max&.to_f
self.per_unit_quantities_configuration_step = per_unit_quantities_configuration_step&.to_f
end
And then I have each individual fields values' validations:
validates :per_unit_quantities_configuration_min,
numericality: { greater_than_or_equal_to: 0 }, allow_nil: false
validates :per_unit_quantities_configuration_max,
numericality: { greater_than: lambda { |p| p.per_unit_quantities_configuration_min } }
validates :per_unit_quantities_configuration_max
numericality: { greater_than_or_equal_to: 0 }, allow_nil: false
validates :per_unit_quantities_configuration_step,
numericality: { greater_than: 0 }, allow_nil: false
The problem I'm having is that when the user tries to send the form with the min field empty (nil), it is transformed to 0 which is a valid value for the field but is not appopiate since API users would receive no feedback that the change is being made.
What is converting the nil value to 0 ? And why is the allow_nil: false validation not triggered instead?
What is converting the nil value to 0?
The call to .to_f:
nil.to_f
=> 0.0
If you're starting with an empty string instead of a nil then the safe navigation operator won't save you:
nil&.to_f
=> nil
""&.to_f
=> 0.0
And why is the allow_nil: false validation not triggered instead?
You changed the value in a before_validation callback. The validations will run against the new value.
You may want to remove the before_validation. This way, you can use the Rails numericality validations to filter out any invalid values (nil, "", "x", etc.). If you still need to do something to the value before it gets stored in the database you may want to use an after_validation callback instead.
I have one model validation like below
validates :value, presence: true, allow_blank: false, uniqueness: { scope: [:account_id, :provider] }
I want to add one more condition of case_sensitive inside uniqueness like below
validates :value, presence: true, allow_blank: false, uniqueness: { scope: [:account_id, :provider], case_sensitive: :is_email? }
def is_email?
provider != email
end
In short, it should not validate case_sensitive when email provider is not email, But currently, it's not working it is expecting true or false only not any method or any conditions.
How can I achieve this in rails? I already wrote custom validation because it was not working.
UPDATE
if I add another validation like below
validates_uniqueness_of :value, case_sensitive: false, if: -> { provider == 'email' }
It's giving me same error for twice :value=>["has already been taken", "has already been taken"]
In the specific case of case_sensitive, the value passed to the option will always be compared against its truthy value.
As you can see in the class UniquenessValidator, when the relation is built, it uses the options passed to check if the value of case_sensitive is truthy (not false nor nil), if so, it takes the elsif branch of the condition:
def build_relation(klass, attribute, value)
...
if !options.key?(:case_sensitive) || bind.nil?
klass.connection.default_uniqueness_comparison(attr, bind, klass)
elsif options[:case_sensitive] # <--------------------------------- sadly, this returns true for :is_email?
klass.connection.case_sensitive_comparison(attr, bind)
else
# will use SQL LOWER function before comparison, unless it detects a case insensitive collation
klass.connection.case_insensitive_comparison(attr, bind)
end
...
end
As you're passing the method name is_email? to case_sensitive, which is in fact a symbol, the condition takes that branch.
tl;dr;. You must always use true or false with case_sensitive.
Given an integer column how do I prevent a alphanumeric being stored as zero?
I tried using the numericality validator but it seems that the value is checked post typecast (using to_i) so a string like 'dd1' is typecast to 0 and thus passes the validation.
validates :portfolio_number, numericality: { only_integer: true, allow_nil: true }
You can create your own validation which checks the value for typecasting:
validate :portfolio_number_is_numeric
private
def portfolio_number_is_numeric
return unless value.present?
errors.add(:portfolio_number, 'must be numeric') unless read_attribute_before_type_cast(:portfolio_number).match?(/\A[0-9]*\z/)
end
This could potentially be extracted in to a validator object for reusability.
I am trying to validate the entry a user makes in an amount field.
The field is amount_money
This field is a string which is validated on form submission
monetize :amount, :as => :amount_money
validates :amount, numericality: {only_integer: true}
validates :amount_money, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0}
validate :amount_money_within_limit
validate :is_a_valid_number
I want to ensure there are no letters or symbols and that the amount is in an acceptable range.
the code to do this is
def amount_money_within_limit
if amount_money && amount_money.cents > 10_000_00
errors.add(:amount_money, 'cannot exceed $10,000.')
end
if amount_money && amount_money.cents < 1_00
errors.add(:amount_money, 'Problem with Amount')
end
end
this works great for input numbers, of numbers and letters, of letters, of special characters but
If I try Bob - the validation kicks in
but if I try BBob - the validation is bypassed.
If the input contains 2 Capital letters next to each other - it fails.
I've tried a downcase - but that doesn't suit as the field is monetized (money gem) - and the downcase screws up if there is valid input.
If the input to the field contains two uppercase letters - all the validations are bypassed So something like AA is not caught by any on the above validations
Why don't you use regular expressions? Something like this:
def is_a_valid_number? amount_money
amount_money =~ /\d+/
end
It seems you have put 1 validation on the wrong field, you should've put validations only on amount field (your real db field), and not on the amount_money which is automagical field from rails-money gem. I'll apply their documentation on numerical validations to your case:
monetize :amount,
:numericality => {
:only_integer => true,
:greater_than_or_equal_to => 1_00,
:less_than_or_equal_to => 10_000_00
}
You won't need any other custom validations with this setup.
Is it a good idea to having validates like this:
validates :serialnumber, presence: true, length: {7..20}, format: {with: /\d{7,20/}
As you see it generates three errors if I don't type serialnumber.
I would like to see only one error.
If I type nothing, I would like to see 'serial number is required' only.
If I type 123ABC I would like to see 'wrong length' only
And if I type 123-ABC-123 I would like to see 'wrong format' only
How to do it?
Regards
You could split it into 2 validators, check if this would work
validates :serialnumber, presence: true
validates :serialnumber, length: {7..20}, format: { with: /\d{7,20}/ }, allow_blank: true
As I understand then you want to see only one error message at a time. If that's the case then custom validation method might help. For ex.
validate :serial_number_validation_one_by_one
private
def serial_number_validation_one_by_one
if !self.serial_number.present?
errors.add(:serial_number, "must be present!")
elsif self.serial_number.length < 7 || self.serial_number.length > 20
errors.add(:serial_number, "must have length between 7 and 20!")
elsif self.serial_number.match(<your regex pattern here>)
errors.add(:serial_number, "must be properly formatted!")
end
end
Keep in mind that custom validation methods are called by validate not by validates.