Dan,
Also, in this case just note that validating email addresses with a
regex isn't trivial:
http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
We would probably want to err on the permissive side...
Brandon
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 9:55 AM Mark Payne <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dan,
>
>
> Agreed: we usually use a NON_EMPTY_VALIDATOR if we support the Expression
> Language. Which is a bit lame because that means that if you want to use
> the Expression Language you can't provide configuration-time validation.
> This is probably a nice place to give some thoughts. I can imagine two
> different things that could be done to improve this:
>
>
> Allow configuration-time validation to occur when the EL is not used
> (I.e., when the user doesn't enter an Expression). So for example, it would
> be nice if PutEmail supported the Expression Language but in the case that
> EL is not used it could validate the e-mail address against a regex. We do
> have some users doing this sort of thing with their own custom processors.
> But it's a bit hokey to implement because the validator itself has to
> determine whether or not EL is being used. Maybe the framework should make
> this easier. The difficult part here, I think, is providing a clean API
> that allows the developer to specify that they want validation run always
> or only when not using EL, etc.
>
>
>
> Perhaps PropertyValue should support an isValid() method, so that at
> runtime at least the develop can say "context.getProperty(MY_
> PROPERTY).evaluateExpressions(flowFile).isValid()" and if not handle
> appropriately. This would resolve the values of the Expression and then
> run against the validators assigned to the PropertyDescriptor MY_PROPERTY.
> Perhaps we could support this by providing an 'addRuntimeValidator' method
> in addition to 'addValidator' on the PropertyDescriptor's builder?
>
>
>
> Thoughts, anyone?
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Daniel Bress
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2015 9:15 AM
> To: [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Devs,
>
> I noticed that PutEmail does not validate the contents of the
> From/To/CC/BCC fields, so I thought I would write a regular expression to
> validate it, and attach it to the properties. I did this and it works
> great, UNLESS the user enters an expression language for the email
> addresses. Because then my newly added validation fails. Would it be
> possible to validate the result of the expression language execution,
> rather than the EL it's self?
>
>
> As it is implemented I have two questions/concerns:
>
>
> Is there any reason to let people add validators when using expression
> language? It feels like it would only make sense to have a
> NON_EMPTY_VALIDATOR on an EL property.
>
> It feels like this presents developers with a choice: a) support
> expression language, b) have the ability to validate the fields real
> meaning in the UI
>
>
> I understand this is not a huge issue, and probably requires a lot of
> thought(that you probably already have done), but I noticed it in PutEmail
> this morning and bring it up and see what everyone thinks.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Dan Bress
> Software Engineer
> ONYX Consulting Services
