Adhering to the designated community’s metadata and curation standards, along with providing stewardship of the data holdings e.g. technical validation, documentation, quality control, authenticity protection, and long-term persistence.

even those people who are deeply involved in introspection and find that they that their minds raise objections which prevent them going deeper into their experiential investigation and i feel that the work you're doing is making a very um significant contribution to those people as well

i try to validate the effort i make by paying attention to a specific group of people people more or less like me that do not allow themselves to open up to the introspective path unless and until they have some kind of conceptual model that validates that that introspective path if if the head doesn't allow the heart to have the experience by direct acquaintance then in those people the heart doesn't get there the brain is the bouncer of the heart

Inventories of species remain incomplete – mainly due to limited field sampling –to provide an accurate picture of the extent and distribution of all components ofbiodiversity (Purvis/Hector 2000, MEA 2003).

upport cross-divisional thinking and that the best ideas are already in a company and it's just a matter of sort of um getting people together

you can't as one person you know solve a global problem like this it's you starts at a 00:34:58 CommunityWide level

we are going to need decentralized networks of communities figuring out how to support one another

if you could get everyone on the planet to do one thing what would it be and she said stay exactly where you are and figure out 00:33:30 what it is that you can do in your local

Thus, as in the case of natural languages, the pattern language is generative. It not only tells us the rules of arrangement, but shows us how to construct arrangements as many as we want which satisfy the rules.

这两种方式结合起来，不就是典型的默认 + 定制扩展的搭配麽？

the contents of your mind, your self model, your model of the outside world, where the boundary between you and the outside world is- so where do you end and the outside world begins- all of these things are constantly being constructed 00:00:36 and created.

we have to be very careful when we respond to climate change we're not exacerbating the other ones that are there and 00:12:34 ideally we want to try and respond to all of these challenges at the same time and there are a lot of crossovers between them but there are also real risks that sometimes you you solve one thing and cause another now in contemporary Society we have been very 00:12:47 good at reductionist thinking of of silos of thinking one bit and then causing another problem elsewhere we we don't have that opportunity anymore we have to start to think of these issues at a system level

Ajv generates code to turn JSON Schemas into super-fast validation functions that are efficient for v8 optimization.

Rose therefore recommended "explicit consistency checks in a protocol ... even if they impose implementation overhead".

openVALIDATION enables programming of complex validation rules using natural language, such as German or English.

"detail": [ { "loc": [ "body", "name" ], "message": "Field required" }, { "loc": [ "body", "email" ], "message": "'not-email' is not an 'email'" } ]

x-ov-rules: culture: en rule: | the location of the applicant MUST be Dortmund

One of the reasons I initially pushed back on the creation of a JSON Schema for V3 is because I feared that people would try to use it as a document validator. However, I was convinced by other TSC members that there were valid uses of a schema beyond validation.

I'd also love to see a JSON schema along with the specification. I don't really trust myself to be able to accurately read the spec in its entirely, so for 2.0 I fell back heavily on using the included schemas to verify that what I'm generating is actually intelligible (and it worked, they caught many problems).

allOf takes an array of object definitions that are validated independently but together compose a single object.

Hence an email address/mailbox/addr-spec is "local-part@domain"; "local-part" is composed of one or more of 'word' and periods; "word" can be an "atom" which can include anything except "specials", control characters or blank/space; and specials (the *only* printable ASCII characters [other than space, if you call space "printable"] *excluded* from being a valid "local-part") are: ()<>@,;:\".[] Therefore by the official standard for email on the internet, the plus sign is as much a legal character in the local-part of an email address as "a" or "_" or "-" or most any other symbol you see on the main part of a standard keyboard.

There's a common design flaw on many many websites that require an email address to register; most recently I came across this bug on CNet's download.com site: for some reason they don't accept me when I try to register an email address containing a "+", and they then send me back saying my address is invalid. It isn't!

"+" is a completely valid character in an email address; as defined by the internet messaging standard published in 1982(!) RFC 822 (page 8 & 9)... Any website claiming anything else is wrong by definition, plus they are prohibiting me and many fellow anti-spam activists from tracking where inbound spam comes from:

Input check = Tests the user input, as opposed to some internal data structure or the output of a function.

Your validation functions should also treat undefined and '' as the same. This is not too difficult since both undefined and '' are falsy in javascript. So a "required" validation rule would just be error = value ? undefined : 'Required'.

Using these attributes will show validation errors, or limit what the user can enter into an <input>.

The HTML5 form validation techniques in this post only work on the front end. Someone could turn off JavaScript and still submit jank data to a form with the tightest JS form validation.To be clear, you should still do validation on the server.

With these JavaScript techniques, the display of server validation errors could be a lot simpler if you expect most of your users to have JS enabled. For example, Rails still encourages you to dump all validation errors at the top of a form, which is lulzy in this age of touchy UX. But you could do that minimal thing with server errors, then rely on HTML5 validation to provide a good user experience for the vast majority of your users.

We don’t want to invalidate the input if the user removes all text. They may need a moment to think, but the invalidated state sets off an unnecessary alarm.

If you would like to make “empty” include values that consist of spaces only, you can add the attribute pattern=.*\S.*.

Positively indicate valid input values Let users know a field has been entered correctly. The browser can give us this information through the :valid CSS selector:

Currently, there is no way to style those little validation tooltips.

Website: <input type="url" name="website" required pattern="https?://.+"> Now our input box will only accept text starting with http:// or https:// and at least one additional character

var applicationForm = document.getElementById("applicationForm"); if (applicationForm.checkValidity()) { applicationForm.submit(); } else { applicationForm.reportValidity(); }

Therefore client side validation should always be treated as a progressive enhancement to the user experience; all forms should be usable even if client side validation is not present.

It's important to remember that even with these new APIs client side validation does not remove the need for server side validation. Malicious users can easily workaround any client side constraints, and, HTTP requests don't have to originate from a browser.

Since you have to have server side validation anyways, if you simply have your server side code return reasonable error messages and display them to the end user you have a built in fallback for browsers that don't support any form of client side validation.

Responders don't use valid? to check for errors in models to figure out if the request was successful or not, and relies on your controllers to call save or create to trigger the validations.

It is based on the idea that each validation is encapsulated by a simple, stateless predicate that receives some input and returns either true or false.

URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

ActiveInteraction type checks your inputs. Often you'll want more than that. For instance, you may want an input to be a string with at least one non-whitespace character. Instead of writing your own validation for that, you can use validations from ActiveModel. These validations aren't provided by ActiveInteraction. They're from ActiveModel. You can also use any custom validations you wrote yourself in your interactions.

Note that it's perfectly fine to add errors during execution. Not all errors have to come from type checking or validation.

with ActiveForm-Rails, validations is the responsability of the form and not of the models. There is no need to synchronize errors from the form to the models and vice versa.

I agre with your concern. I realy prefer to do this : form.assign_attributes(hash) if form.valid? my_service.update(form) #render something else #render somthing else end It looks more like a normal controller.

My only concern with this approach is that if someone calls #valid? on the form object afterwards, it would under the hood currently delete the existing errors on the form object and revalidate. The could have unexpected side effects where the errors added by the models passed in or the service called will be lost.

My concern with this approach is still that it's somewhat brittle with the current implementation of valid? because whilst valid? appears to be a predicate and should have no side effects, this is not the case and could remove the errors applied by one of the steps above.

Some developers found work arounds by using virtual attributes to # skip validators

Any attribute in the list will be allowed, and any defined as attr_{accessor,reader,writer} will not be populated when passed in as params. This means we no longer need to use strong_params in the controllers because the form has a clear definition of what it expects and protects us by design.

If you include ActiveModel::Validations you can write the same validators as you would with ActiveRecord. However, in this case, our form is just a collection of Contact objects, which are ActiveRecord and have their own validations. When I save the ContactListForm, it attempts to save all the contacts. In doing so, each contact has its error_messages available.

Finally, through its reference to “the accumulated evidence,” the definition in the Standards emphasizes that obtaining validity evidence is a process rather than a sin-gle study from which a dichotomous “valid/not valid” decision is made

we update the validation schema on the fly (we had a similar case with a validation that needs to be included whenever some fetch operation was completed)

Final Form makes the assumption that your validation functions are "pure" or "idempotent", i.e. will always return the same result when given the same values. This is why it doesn't run the synchronous validation again (just to double check) before allowing the submission: because it's already stored the results of the last time it ran it.

Form Validation

return { type: "COUNTRY_BLACK_LIST", succeeded, message: succeeded ? "" : "This country is not available" }

Validation Schema: A Form Validation Schema allows you to synthesize all the form validations (a list of validators per form field) into a single object definition. Using this approach you can easily check which validations apply to a given form without having to dig into the UI code.

It is easily extensible (already implemented Final Form and Formik plugin extensions).

Form validation can get complex (synchronous validations, asynchronous validations, record validations, field validations, internationalization, schemas definitions...). To cope with these challenges we will leverage this into Fonk and Fonk Final Form adaptor for a React Final Form seamless integration.

Just let the user fill in some fields, submit it to the server and if there are any errors notify them and let the user start over again. Is that a good approach? The answer is no, you don't want users to get frustrated waiting for a server round trip to get some form validation result.

Fonk is framework extension, and can be easily plugged into many libraries / frameworks, in this documentation you will find integrations with:

In other words, I do not want an error to appear/disappear as a user types the text that swaps it from invalid to valid.

Add new plugin Recaptcha3Token that sends the reCaptcha v3 token to the back-end when the form is valid

All validators can be used independently. Inspried by functional programming paradigm, all built in validators are just functions.

FormValidation.validators.creditCard().validate({

FormValidation.formValidation(formElement

that a better and cleaner approach would be to use computed properties and a validation library that is decoupled for the UI (like hapi/joi).

These all come from the HTML Standard.

setCustomValidity

Note that we added HTML validation with specifying the types of the field (email and password). This allows the browser to validate the input.

We must always return at least some validation rule. So first off if value !== undefined then we'll return our previous validation schema. If it is undefined then we'll use the yup.mixed().notRequired() which will just inform yup that nothing is required at the optionalObject level. optionalObject: yup.lazy(value => { if (value !== undefined) { return yup.object().shape({ otherData: yup.string().required(), }); } return yup.mixed().notRequired(); }),

Mark the schema as required. All field values apart from undefined and null meet this requirement.

The same as the mixed() schema required, except that empty strings are also considered 'missing' values.

Form validation is hard. That's why there are so many different form handling libraries for the popular web frameworks. It's usually not something that is built-it, because everyone has a different need and there is no one-fit-all solution.

Triggers error messages to render after a field is touched, and blurred (focused out of), this is useful for text fields which might start out erronous but end up valid in the end (i.e. email, or zipcode). In these cases you don't want to rush to show the user a validation error message when they haven't had a chance to finish their entry.

Triggers error messages to show up as soon as a value of a field changes. Useful for when the user needs instant feedback from the form validation (i.e. password creation rules, non-text based inputs like select, or switches etc.)

Constraints

The bindings are two-way because any HTML5 contraint validation errors will be added to the Final Form state, and any field-level validation errors from Final Form will be set into the HTML5 validity.customError state.

So when we ask users to answer questions that deal with the future, we have to keep in mind the context in which they’re answering. They can tell us about a feature they think will make their lives better, but user val-idation will always be necessary to make sure that past user’s beliefs about future user are accurate.

It's worth pointing out that filenames can contain a newline character on many *nix systems. You're unlikely to ever run into this in the wild, but if you're running shell commands on untrusted input this could be a concern

To verify that your structured data is correct, many platforms provide validation tools. In this tutorial, we'll validate our structured data with the Google Structured Data Validation Tool.

Currently, if we have an invalid mouse association that was previously saved at some point in the past (eg. with mouse.save! validate: false)

There's not a way to do this. What you could do instead is use Cloud Functions HTTP triggers as an API for writing data. It could check the conditions you want, then return a response that indicates what's wrong with the data the client is trying to write. I understand this is far from ideal, but it might be the best option you have right now