Framework: [5.2] Numeric fails to validate against empty value

[arthurkirkosa]

https://github.com/laravel/framework/blob/5.2/src/Illuminate/Validation/Validator.php#L152

Having numeric (and others) in the $implicitRules variable implies that the particular field MUST have a value, and fails for empty values.

// InvoiceRequest
public function rules()
    {
        return [
            ...
            'amount' => 'required|numeric',
            'vat_amount' => 'numeric',
            ...
        ];
    }

// Checking the HTML output

<li>The vat amount must be a number.</li>

<input class="form-control" placeholder="VAT Amount" required="" name="vat_amount" type="text" value="">

[GrahamCampbell]

Is this an issue on 5.1 too?

[arthurkirkosa]

No. I didn't have this issue until the upgrade to 5.2. Traced the issue to that line

[GrahamCampbell]

Thanks.

[GrahamCampbell]

Ping @taylorotwell. Was this intentional. I know there were some changes to validation in L5.2.

[taylorotwell]

Yeah I think it is intentional. If you send a value, it has to be numeric. So I would suggest sending 0 or something instead of an empty string.

[jordandobrev]

Brakes my project too.

validate( ['nullable_number' => null], ['nullable_number' => 'numeric'] )

fails

[taylorotwell]

Yes, that is intentional. If you provide the field, it must be numeric, as
your validation rules state.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:32 AM, Jordan Dobrev [email protected]
wrote:

Brakes my project too.

validate(
['nullable_number' => null],
['nullable_number' => 'numeric']
)

fails

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/11452#issuecomment-166629821
.

[jordandobrev]

Aren't we supposed to use sometimes for that?

How do we handle the validation of nullable numbers?

[taylorotwell]

​You could send a 0.​

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Jordan Dobrev [email protected]
wrote:

Aren't we supposed to use sometimes for that?

How do we handle the validation of nullable numbers?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/11452#issuecomment-166633744
.

[jordandobrev]

This won't work if the validation is part of your eloquent model.

I am using Jeffrey's package like validation:
https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Model-Validation/blob/master/src/Way/Database/Model.php

$v = $this->validator->make($this->attributes, static::$rules, static::$messages);

Attributes is going to contain nullable values when you attempt to perform an update.

Should we filter the attributes and skip null values then?

[taylorotwell]

You could. You could also extend Validator using Validator::extend to add a
nullable_numeric rule or something like that. Would be easy.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Jordan Dobrev [email protected]
wrote:

This won't work if the validation is part of your eloquent model.

I am using Jeffrey's package like validation:

https://github.com/JeffreyWay/Laravel-Model-Validation/blob/master/src/Way/Database/Model.php

$v = $this->validator->make($this->attributes, static::$rules,
static::$messages);

Attributes is going to contain nullable values when you attempt to perform
an update.

Should we filter the attributes and skip null values then?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/11452#issuecomment-166637839
.

[jordandobrev]

Great! Thx

[mtctonyhkhk2010]

But in the 5.2 docs, http://laravel.com/docs/5.2/validation#custom-validation-rules.
In the part about Implicit Extensions, it said:

"By default, when an attribute being validated is not present or contains an empty value as defined by the required rule, normal validation rules, including custom extensions, are not run. For example, the integer rule will not be run against a null value:"

Does the docs need to be updated? Or not?

[taylorotwell]

In this case the docs would need to be updated. Basically, in Laravel 5.2,
if you say something has to be numeric, it actually has to be numeric. Or,
if you say something has to be a string, it has to be a string. You can't
specify something must be numeric and then try to pass null or an empty
string through the validator.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 9:37 AM, mtctonyhkhk2010 [email protected]
wrote:

But in the 5.2 docs,
http://laravel.com/docs/5.2/validation#custom-validation-rules.
In the part about Implicit Extensions, it said:

"By default, when an attribute being validated is not present or contains
an empty value as defined by the required rule, normal validation rules,
including custom extensions, are not run. For example, the integer rule
will not be run against a null value:"

Does the docs need to be updated? Or not?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/11452#issuecomment-166649590
.

[arthurkirkosa]

This means that the required rule is not necessary any more for 'Array', 'Boolean', 'Integer', 'Numeric', 'String' (which sum up all the possible types you can pass from a form)

[taylorotwell]

I'll just revert to 5.1 behavior even though I think it's kind of weird.

On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:20 AM, Arthur Kirkosa [email protected]
wrote:

This means that the required rule is not necessary any more for 'Array',
'Boolean', 'Integer', 'Numeric', 'String' (which sum up all the possible
types you can pass from a form)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/laravel/framework/issues/11452#issuecomment-166664632
.

[arthurkirkosa]

It's not necessarily weird. If you have a integer nullable field in you db you'd like a null value if the field is left empty.

Or a datetime nullable ... for an "expiration_date" field... you'd expect it to allow empty values.

[jordandobrev]

What if an additional 'nullable' rule is added to the validations. Wouldn't that make more sense?

validate(
    ['nullable_field' => null],
    ['nullable_field' => 'numeric|nullable']]
);

[panique]

+1, can reproduce on L5.2, this feels broken, empty string is not numeric, also numeric|min:1 validates an empty string to true ... hmmm

[themsaid]

@GrahamCampbell passing an empty string as a value will cause the validator to neglect the key for validation if the rules doesn't indicate the field is required and sometimes isn't used, it's apparently a bug but fixing it might be considered breaking. What's the best way to deal with such situation? Keep the same behaviour for 5.2 and fix in 5.3? Or just fix in 5.2 since it's considered a bug?

[themsaid]

This was reverted in 5.2, and in 5.3 a new nullable validation rule was added and the validator became more strict when it comes to primitives.

[jbajou]

I really don't think this nullable rule makes a lot of sense (or I don't understand it as much as you guys).
I mean, we have already the required rule that validates if you actually pass some data. Having the nullable makes it able to not be required, like the opposite of the required rule BUT only for primitives.
From my point of view, if it is not required then it is nullable, and this has nothing to do with the type of the data. I think previous (< L5.1) was more consistant with the wording. Am I missing something here ?

[denis-chmel]

Guys, this is so sick.
Now it is not possible (is it?) to validate some primitive formats with "require_if".
E.g. in the following (wild life) use-case, laravel 5.4:
'voucher_price' => "required_if:voucher_enabled,1|integer",
Now no matter if my "voucher_enabled" checkbox is checked or not - the "voucher_price" is failing validation, because some empty price comes in post. Which is not illegal in this case.

And if I change the rule to:
'voucher_price' => "required_if:voucher_enabled,1|integer|nullable",
Then it won't fail validation even when it should: i.e. when price is empty, while required.
And when I try this:
'voucher_price' => "bail|required_if:voucher_enabled,1|integer",
Then if my voucher_enabled is 0, voucher_price is empty (not illegal) and validation fails on "integer" rule, because null is not integer.

Do you expect us to write our own "integer_if", "min_if" "numeric_unless", "email_if" custom validations?

[ITwrx]

@jbajou I agree. To me, nullable should just be the default when a field is not required. If i send null, I don't expect laravel to be trying to validate that it matches the rule I created for when a "normal value"(anything except null) is actually sent. I understand that laravel is just trying to be strict/explicit about what is being validated, but maybe doing the reverse would make more sense for the majority of devs. IOW, a "not_nullable" rule.

[chuoke]

How to validate field is email or empty in default rules?