[bv-dev] Cross parameter validation convergence

[Gunnar Morling]

Am 04.09.2012 00:55 schrieb "Emmanuel Bernard" <emmanuel at hibernate.org>:
>
> On Sat, Sep 01, 2012 at 06:38:58PM +0200, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > Based on our discussions around the issue, I'm wondering whether we
> > should put cross-parameter validation into BV 1.1 at all.
> >
> > AFAIK none of the BV implementations provides such a feature, so with
> > this we'd be pretty much on the "innovating things" side of what a JSR
> > can do, opposed to the "standardization" side of the spectrum. IMO it
> > would be better to see cross-parameter validation be implemented by at
> > least one BV provider to gather some experiences and then standardize.
> >
>
> I personally would feel that we are missing a big and well defined set of
> use cases by leaving this unsolved. Look at how much complain we already
> have for cross field validations where we have *an actual solution*.
>
> Plus by not addressing it we might have APIs that won't support the
> notion down the road.
>
> > Note that a user can work around the lack of cross-parameter
> > validation by pulling the concerned parameters into a parameter
> > object, putting a class-level constraint on it and annotating the
> > parameter with @Valid.
>
> We can't realistically force people to change the natural signature of
> their method just to use Bean Validation. Do you really want to be the
> one in front of a 200 people crowd telling them that they need to change
> their method signature on the ground that you did not feel like
> supporting cross parameter validation? :)

Sounds like an interesting experience, being thrown at with rotten
vegetables by a furious crowd complaining about cross-parameter validation
not being supported ;)

>
> > If we really want to add this to BV 1.1, IMO we should only add the
> > generic approach and let implementors experiment with the type-safe
> > one.
>
> What is your reasoning for not wanting the type safe approach in?

It's just the number of open questions around this which I'm a bit
concerned about. For the other method validation things we could more or
less rely on the experiences from the existing implementations or added
smaller things like ParameterNameProvider.

Compared to that, there are several questions around (type-safe)
cross-parameter validation we'd be answering in the spec for the first
time. But it may be I'm just over-cautious here.

>
> > > We can do it on the same CrossParameterConstraintValidator
implementation [...] If the method validated has a matching signature, we
use it, otherwise we use the generic method.
> >
> > Wouldn't this contradict the idea of type-safety? If the validated
> > method signature gets changed without adapting the validator, silently
> > the generic method would be used, and also an annotation processor
> > couldn't raise an error since there is the generic method.
>
> That's a very good point and the solution needs to address that.
> The easiest solution I can see here is to have the following interfaces
>
>     interface CrossParameterConstraintValidator<A extends Annotation> {
>         void initialize(A constraintAnnotation);
>     }
>
>     interface GenericCrossParameterConstraintValidator<A extends
Annotation> {
>         boolean isValid(Object[] parameterValues,
ConstraintValidatorContext context);
>     }
>
> That brings back an idea Matt had that I forgot to reply to. Should we
> enforce at most one `isValid` method per
> `CrossParameterConstraintValidator`? With that problem in mind I am
> tempted to think that this is a good rule.
>
> People can still add several validators per cross parameter constraint.

Does it really make a difference whether two (typed) isValid() methods are
declared on one or two validators? I see this a bit similar to the
invocation of overloaded methods. As long as there is exactly one matching
signature, we can invoke it.

It may be challenging though to find the right isValid() method on several
validators in case of overloaded methods. In this respect it might even be
easier to allow for only one cross-parameter validator per constraint with
possibly several isValid() methods.

>
> That leaves one question: should we allow the mix of
> `GenericCrossParameterConstraintValidator` and non
> `GenericCrossParameterConstraintValidator` in a single constraint?
> That would indeed defeat the type-safety belt. On the other hands, it
> looks like a useful thing to be able to mix them when adding validators
> via the XML descriptor.

So far I don't see a good way around the problem of a transparent fallback
to the generic method. Safest (but most restrictive) would be to allow to
have either the generic method or exactly one matching type-safe one over
all validators for a constraint.

>
> > Thinking more about it, I'm wondering how we would represent
> > cross-parameter constraints in ConstraintViolations. What should be
> > returned by getInvalidValue()/getLeafBean()?
>
> I agree that this is not intuitive but we could return the `Object[]` of
> parameters when `getInvalidValue()` is called.
>
> The more general problem is that cross-parameter constraints (or
> should it be constraint validators) do not return the actual parameters
> being considered in violation.

Right. I guess we could either return the concerned indices from isValid()
(returning an empty list meaning no violation) or require isValid()
implementors to create the violation themselves.

>
> I imagine we could have a way to return parameter indexes as part of the
> `ConstraintViolation` or the `ParametersDescriptor` (see below).
>
> But do we want such a feature? And if yes, should it be statically
defined or dynamically
> defined. And if static, should it be hosted on the cross parameters
> constraint or the cross parameters constraint validator implementation?
>
> Note that if we manage to crack this nut, that's a step towards better
> support for cross field validations.
>
> > getPropertyPath() might
> > be an issue, too. For single parameters we have one node representing
> > the concerned parameter at the end of the violation's path, but this
> > wouldn't work here. Perhaps the path could just end with the method
> > node in that case.
>
> I think we just need to introduce a `ParametersDescriptor` that would
> represent this particular case. That seems the most natural approach.

Yepp. I think best is to try some things out in code and look how it works.
The use case could be an interceptor throwing an exception for violated
cross parameter constraints which prints out all required information in a
comprehensible manner.
>
> Emmanuel

--Gunnar

> _______________________________________________
> beanvalidation-dev mailing list
> beanvalidation-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/beanvalidation-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/beanvalidation-dev/attachments/20120905/34c47720/attachment.html