[11.x] Add optional parameter for confirmed validator rule #52722
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
jwpage changed the title confirmed validator ruleconfirmed validator rule 
Contributor
| Couldn't the casing instead/additionally be a general configuration value so it could potentially used by other rules as well? |
Contributor
| This would be nice to have in the docs. |
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed. Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes. Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch. Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit. Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported. You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion. Outdated suggestions cannot be applied. This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved. Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews. Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments. Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge. Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This adds an optional parameter for the
confirmedvalidator rule, allowing for more customization.For example, you could do
"password" => "confirmed:passwordConfirmation"if your front-end coding style required camelCase.Providing no parameter results in the current behavior of checking the default naming convention, ie.
"password" => "confirmed"checkspassword_confirmation.The same behavior can be achieved with
"passwordConfirmation" => "same:password"but I believe this better describes the intent of the validation by associating the confirmation with the original field, along with any other password rules that may be required.