New way to tell validators which messages they should use. about validation

[alganet]

Implementation details (just for me to remember): The process of creating the exception on the AbstractRule will check if the user has setException on that validator.

The ValidationException and it's children will have to deal with unknown exception classes on the chain possibly introduced by this technique. These custom exceptions will be the last leaf of the branches they are, since it's not possible to inspect them further.

The tell() method is just a façade for building validators, exceptions and binding them in the two distinct decoupled hierarchies.

[jeanpimentel]

Very nice!
👍

[nickl-]

I was toying with interfaces and constants which we can extend and not have to duplicate the effort for similar messages. It does not support an array though but we can use the keys, as per the current implementation.

@algonet, your suggestion is for custom messages if I am right?

Something that really bugged me was the tokens being replaced via public properties on the rule class which seems very hackish. We could equally simple use a collection of tokens or abstracted to a token class with static token list and the replacement functionality included, allowing us to obfuscate the public properties instead.

This can then provide a list of replacement tokens which you can use in your custom messages too.

[xavadu]

that is working?
i am user develop branch, but doesn't work for me,

Which type of exeption should go in the catch() ?

[nickl-]

@xavadu this is a brainstorming ideas to implement still. Is there something you would like to add?

[xavadu]

Thanks @nickl- , i use it in an old project but was okay,
i remeber that this type of validation could be useful

[nickl-]

@xavadu glad you came right =)