[Rt-devel] Any interest in the ability in RT to enforce CF value uniqueness?

Philip Kime philip at kime.org.uk
Wed Oct 22 17:49:03 EDT 2008

On 22 Oct 2008, at 11:36 PM, Richard Hartmann wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 22:00, Philip Kime <philip at kime.org.uk> wrote:
>> and removes the regexp-based mandatory approach
>> completely which may bother some people but not that many I would
>> think.
> Why remove it? I like the ability to check for integers, etc.  
> Actually,
> I was pondering to submit the rules I need to write, at some point.
> Think email, IP address, etc.
> Fun fact: I recently sent out a wishlist item, asking for a mandatory
> alongside the current regexp approach. "May be empty or must match
> foo" is a lot more flexible than "Must match foo"

I meant that my patches just removes the "[mandatory]" pattern from  
the list of default regexes as this would be dealt with by a dedicated  
option. I agree completely that the regexp validation should stay  
alongside, as you say, a separate mandatory status. I like the idea of  
being able to say "must be present" completely separately from what  
must be present. It's easier to show to auditors too - you say "look,  
this field is mandatory", rather than "look, this field must match  
this pattern and there is a "+" here which means that it can't be  
completely empty, which means it's effectively mandatory". They don't  
like that much. I do understand BP can't just change things to make it  
work like this since people will be using the regexp as a virtual  
mandatory enforcement.


Dr Philip Kime

More information about the Rt-devel mailing list