You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@flex.apache.org by Jan Komadowski <j....@gmail.com> on 2014/07/22 13:07:45 UTC
EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Hi,
mx.validators.EmailValidator does not accept ".email" domain
--
View this message in context: http://apache-flex-development.2333347.n4.nabble.com/EmailValidator-sdk-4-13-tp39263.html
Sent from the Apache Flex Development mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org>.
On Monday 04 Aug 2014 10:42:56 OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> I have relaxed the security settings on the Jenkins instance so that
> anonymous users can see the workspace. You should now be able to go to
> http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/ws/mustella/ and
Much easier, ta.
It was Managers/StyleManager/AdvancedCSS/descendantSelectors/AdvancedCSS_descendantSelectors_RuntimeCSS failing that caught my eye.
The .bad.png looks fine to me though ?
--
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday 05 Aug 2014 14:36:38 OmPrakash Muppirala wrote:
> for folks to contribute. Please let us know your thoughts on this as
> well.
I've learnt two things
1) In general, make sure you check the Jenkins Mustella run the day after a checkin. I put the URL on the Wiki just now as I couldn't find it at work today !
2) Specifically, a lot of the unit tests for LangPacks strike me as redundant, they just repeat the same test case in each language and check the string from the translation appears. Surely the fact that string bundles are localised is checked at a lower level, so many of these could be removed ? This would make changing Validators specifically and language strings in general less work.
--
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
On 06/08/14 01:11, Alex Harui wrote:
> All tests pass for me now.
That's good news :-)
I'll send some example test failures over in a tick, just recompiling
the tip of develop here at work.
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
All tests pass for me now.
Send me a nonsensical bad bitmap off-list and the SWF that produces it so
I can see what it looks like. Do you have the embedded font libraries
installed in your SDK?
-Alex
On 8/5/14 2:33 PM, "Tom Chiverton" <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>On Tuesday 05 Aug 2014 17:40:37 Alex Harui wrote:
>> Did you update the baseline image for that? It looks like it needs
>> updating.
>
>How's that now ?
>I thought I had, but obviously not.
>
>For some reason here if I run all the Validator tests, I get nonsensical
>'bad' bitmaps e.g. errorTips with no content etc. It might be font or
>Linux related, but it makes it a bit of a pain testing.
>
>This was meant to be a quick easy bug fix :-)
>
>--
>Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 Aug 2014 17:40:37 Alex Harui wrote:
> > Did you update the baseline image for that? It looks like it needs
> > updating.
>
> How's that now ?
> I thought I had, but obviously not.
>
> For some reason here if I run all the Validator tests, I get nonsensical
> 'bad' bitmaps e.g. errorTips with no content etc. It might be font or Linux
> related, but it makes it a bit of a pain testing.
>
> This was meant to be a quick easy bug fix :-)
>
>
Thanks for sticking to it, Tom. We are constantly trying to make it easier
for folks to contribute. Please let us know your thoughts on this as
well.
Thanks,
Om
> --
> Tom
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org>.
On Tuesday 05 Aug 2014 17:40:37 Alex Harui wrote:
> Did you update the baseline image for that? It looks like it needs
> updating.
How's that now ?
I thought I had, but obviously not.
For some reason here if I run all the Validator tests, I get nonsensical 'bad' bitmaps e.g. errorTips with no content etc. It might be font or Linux related, but it makes it a bit of a pain testing.
This was meant to be a quick easy bug fix :-)
--
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I only got one failure. It was for:
Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
Did you update the baseline image for that? It looks like it needs
updating.
-Alex
On 8/5/14 8:52 AM, "Alex Harui" <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>Might be off by only one pixel. There are image compare tools in the
>mustella folder.
>
>I just found that by working copy was not syncing. Not sure why. Trying
>again.
>
>-Alex
>
>On 8/5/14 8:43 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>
>>I don't have them, they looked identical though.
>>
>>Tom
>>
>>On 05/08/14 15:49, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> I'm on a Mac, but I tried:
>>>
>>>
>>>Managers/StyleManager/AdvancedCSS/descendantSelectors/AdvancedCSS_descen
>>>d
>>>an
>>> tSelectors_RuntimeCSS descendantSelector_basic_noMatch_style_runtimecss
>>>
>>> And
>>>
>>> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>>> EmailValidator_invalidDomainError_spark
>>>
>>>
>>> And the both passed for me. I'm rebuilding the SDK just to be sure.
>>>If
>>> you managed to grab the bad.png files send them to me off-list. I'll
>>>try
>>> the langpack tests soon.
>>>
>>> -Alex
>>>
>>> On 8/5/14 3:47 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did you have any luck ? Last night's Jenkins job exploded early on,
>>>>but
>>>> I believe I've fixed the lang pack test failures.
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> On 04/08/14 19:23, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>>> I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs
>>>>>based
>>>>> on the kinds of differences
>>>>> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
>>>>>> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between
>>>>>> platforms.
>>>>>> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics
>>>>>> may
>>>>>> help.
>>>>> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
>>>>>
>>>>>Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>>>>> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and
>>>>> update as needed ?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>>> service.
>>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>>>
>>>>>______________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>service.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Might be off by only one pixel. There are image compare tools in the
mustella folder.
I just found that by working copy was not syncing. Not sure why. Trying
again.
-Alex
On 8/5/14 8:43 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>I don't have them, they looked identical though.
>
>Tom
>
>On 05/08/14 15:49, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I'm on a Mac, but I tried:
>>
>>
>>Managers/StyleManager/AdvancedCSS/descendantSelectors/AdvancedCSS_descend
>>an
>> tSelectors_RuntimeCSS descendantSelector_basic_noMatch_style_runtimecss
>>
>> And
>>
>> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>> EmailValidator_invalidDomainError_spark
>>
>>
>> And the both passed for me. I'm rebuilding the SDK just to be sure. If
>> you managed to grab the bad.png files send them to me off-list. I'll
>>try
>> the langpack tests soon.
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>> On 8/5/14 3:47 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Did you have any luck ? Last night's Jenkins job exploded early on, but
>>> I believe I've fixed the lang pack test failures.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 04/08/14 19:23, Alex Harui wrote:
>>>> I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs
>>>>based
>>>> on the kinds of differences
>>>> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>>>>
>>>> Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
>>>>> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between
>>>>> platforms.
>>>>> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics
>>>>> may
>>>>> help.
>>>> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
>>>> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>>>> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>>>>
>>>> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and
>>>> update as needed ?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
I don't have them, they looked identical though.
Tom
On 05/08/14 15:49, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'm on a Mac, but I tried:
>
> Managers/StyleManager/AdvancedCSS/descendantSelectors/AdvancedCSS_descendan
> tSelectors_RuntimeCSS descendantSelector_basic_noMatch_style_runtimecss
>
> And
>
> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
> EmailValidator_invalidDomainError_spark
>
>
> And the both passed for me. I'm rebuilding the SDK just to be sure. If
> you managed to grab the bad.png files send them to me off-list. I'll try
> the langpack tests soon.
>
> -Alex
>
> On 8/5/14 3:47 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>
>> Did you have any luck ? Last night's Jenkins job exploded early on, but
>> I believe I've fixed the lang pack test failures.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 04/08/14 19:23, Alex Harui wrote:
>>> I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs based
>>> on the kinds of differences
>>> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>>>
>>> Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
>>>> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between
>>>> platforms.
>>>> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics
>>>> may
>>>> help.
>>> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
>>> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>>> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>>>
>>> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and
>>> update as needed ?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>> service.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I'm on a Mac, but I tried:
Managers/StyleManager/AdvancedCSS/descendantSelectors/AdvancedCSS_descendan
tSelectors_RuntimeCSS descendantSelector_basic_noMatch_style_runtimecss
And
Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
EmailValidator_invalidDomainError_spark
And the both passed for me. I'm rebuilding the SDK just to be sure. If
you managed to grab the bad.png files send them to me off-list. I'll try
the langpack tests soon.
-Alex
On 8/5/14 3:47 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>Did you have any luck ? Last night's Jenkins job exploded early on, but
>I believe I've fixed the lang pack test failures.
>
>Tom
>
>On 04/08/14 19:23, Alex Harui wrote:
>> I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs based
>>on the kinds of differences
>> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>>
>> Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
>>> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between
>>>platforms.
>>> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics
>>>may
>>> help.
>> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
>> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
>> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>>
>> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and
>>update as needed ?
>>
>> --
>> Tom
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
Did you have any luck ? Last night's Jenkins job exploded early on, but
I believe I've fixed the lang pack test failures.
Tom
On 04/08/14 19:23, Alex Harui wrote:
> I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs based on the kinds of differences
> Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
>
> Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
>> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between platforms.
>> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics may
>> help.
> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>
> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and update as needed ?
>
> --
> Tom
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
I'll see if I can repro on my mac. The way handle bitmaps differs based on the kinds of differences
Sent via the PANTECH Discover, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone.
Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between platforms.
> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics may
> help.
It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and update as needed ?
--
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by OmPrakash Muppirala <bi...@gmail.com>.
I have relaxed the security settings on the Jenkins instance so that
anonymous users can see the workspace. You should now be able to go to
http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/ws/mustella/ and
look through the tests and its folders.
I believe you are looking for:
http://flex-mustella.cloudapp.net/job/flex-sdk_mustella/ws/mustella/tests/Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/baselines/
Keep in mind that when the new builds starts, the entire workspace is wiped
out and recreated from git again. So, you have a window between builds to
see the failed tests.
Thanks,
Om
Thanks,
Om
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 10:32 AM, Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
> > Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between
> platforms.
> > Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics may
> > help.
>
> It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
> Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
> which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
>
> What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and update
> as needed ?
>
> --
> Tom
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <to...@apache.org>.
On Thursday 31 Jul 2014 16:32:01 Alex Harui wrote:
> Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between platforms.
> Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics may
> help.
It looks like there are bitmap differences in Jenkins for
Validators/EmailValidator/Properties/Validators_Email_Properties_spark
which is one I put a corrected bitmap in for.
What's the best way to get the bad.png from Jenkins, inspect it and update as needed ?
--
Tom
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Chris Martin <wi...@gmail.com>.
I think that change would be good :)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
> Changing the EmailValidator causes Mustella test failures; so my change
> also needs to update the tests (to expect valid, rather than invalid).
> And then I need to save new basline images - Will it be OK taking these
> from my Linux box (i.e. rename the .bad.png) or do they have to come
> from Windows as that's what runs the full test suite ?
>
> Tom
>
> On 31/07/14 09:47, Justin Mclean wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> Any objection to that fix ?
> > +1 from me
> >
> > Justin
> >
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> > This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> > For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
Try using your Linux box. Often there is no difference between platforms.
Usually gradients cause the differences so simplifying the graphics may
help.
On 7/31/14 5:42 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>Changing the EmailValidator causes Mustella test failures; so my change
>also needs to update the tests (to expect valid, rather than invalid).
>And then I need to save new basline images - Will it be OK taking these
>from my Linux box (i.e. rename the .bad.png) or do they have to come
>from Windows as that's what runs the full test suite ?
>
>Tom
>
>On 31/07/14 09:47, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Any objection to that fix ?
>> +1 from me
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
Changing the EmailValidator causes Mustella test failures; so my change
also needs to update the tests (to expect valid, rather than invalid).
And then I need to save new basline images - Will it be OK taking these
from my Linux box (i.e. rename the .bad.png) or do they have to come
from Windows as that's what runs the full test suite ?
Tom
On 31/07/14 09:47, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> Any objection to that fix ?
> +1 from me
>
> Justin
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> Any objection to that fix ?
+1 from me
Justin
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
I've raised a Jira for this issue :
I intend to submit a patch that removes this block
if (lastDomain.length != 3 &&
lastDomain.length != 2 &&
lastDomain.length != 4 &&
lastDomain.length != 6)
{
as that seems the smallest change that address' the bug. Having looked
at the validator, it already functions as 'more relaxed'rather than 'to
spec'.
Any objection to that fix ?
Tom
On 22/07/14 17:43, Harbs wrote:
> Here’s a very good reference on the topic:
> http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
>
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> We should do both, at some point.
>>
>> On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
>>> like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
>>> something more relaxed.
>>>
>>> By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
>>> split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
>>> As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
>>> not guarantee email box existence"
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
>>>
>>> Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
>>> exists or not ?
>>> But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>>> HI,
>>>>
>>>>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular
>>>>> expression ?
>>>> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email
>>>> addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a
>>>> good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-v
>>>> alidate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
I've raised a Jira for this issue :
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-34450
Tom
On 22/07/14 17:43, Harbs wrote:
> Here’s a very good reference on the topic:
> http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
>
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> We should do both, at some point.
>>
>> On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
>>> like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
>>> something more relaxed.
>>>
>>> By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
>>> split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
>>> As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
>>> not guarantee email box existence"
>>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
>>>
>>> Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
>>> exists or not ?
>>> But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>> On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>>> HI,
>>>>
>>>>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular
>>>>> expression ?
>>>> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email
>>>> addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a
>>>> good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>>>>
>>>> Justin
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-v
>>>> alidate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>>> service.
>>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Harbs <ha...@gmail.com>.
Here’s a very good reference on the topic:
http://www.regular-expressions.info/email.html
On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com> wrote:
> We should do both, at some point.
>
> On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>
>> I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
>> like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
>> something more relaxed.
>>
>> By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
>> split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
>> As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
>> not guarantee email box existence"
>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
>>
>> Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
>> exists or not ?
>> But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
>>> HI,
>>>
>>>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular
>>>> expression ?
>>> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email
>>> addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a
>>> good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>>>
>>> Justin
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-v
>>> alidate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>>>
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>> service.
>>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com>.
We should do both, at some point.
On 7/22/14 5:30 AM, "Tom Chiverton" <tc...@extravision.com> wrote:
>I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
>like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
>something more relaxed.
>
>By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
>split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
>As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
>not guarantee email box existence"
>(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
>
>Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
>exists or not ?
>But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
>
>Tom
>
>On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
>> HI,
>>
>>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular
>>>expression ?
>> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email
>>addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a
>>good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>>
>> Justin
>>
>> 1.
>>http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-v
>>alidate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud
>>service.
>> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
I think we have two choices, either validate to the spec ( RFC 5322,
like http://www.ex-parrot.com/~pdw/Mail-RFC822-Address.html ) or use
something more relaxed.
By more relaxed I mean split('@').length==2 &&
split('@')[1].split('.').length>1
As Wikipedia says "Syntactically correct, verified email addresses do
not guarantee email box existence"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_address#Validation_and_verification).
Much like how the zip/post code validator doesn't tell you if an address
exists or not ?
But would we then have to explain ourselves a lot on users@ ?
Tom
On 22/07/14 13:22, Justin Mclean wrote:
> HI,
>
>> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular expression ?
> Because there is no regular expression that validates all email addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
>
> Justin
>
> 1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-validate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
HI,
> Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular expression ?
Because there is no regular expression that validates all email addresses and even if it did they can still be invalid. See [1] for a good discussion - and some scary regular expressions.
Justin
1. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/201323/using-a-regular-expression-to-validate-an-email-address/1917982#1917982
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Tom Chiverton <tc...@extravision.com>.
Does any one know why it isn't just using the proper regular expression ?
Tom
On 22/07/14 12:19, Justin Mclean wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> mx.validators.EmailValidator does not accept ".email" domain
> Want to raise a JIRA? Looks like lines 220-223 cause the issue.
>
> if (lastDomain.length != 3 &&
> lastDomain.length != 2 &&
> lastDomain.length != 4 &&
> lastDomain.length != 6)
> {
> results.push(new ValidationResult(
> true, baseField, "invalidDomain",
> validator.invalidDomainError));
> return results;
> }
>
> With new domains like .photography, .international and .email this is not going to work.
>
> Thanks,
> Justin
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
Re: EmailValidator sdk 4.13
Posted by Justin Mclean <ju...@classsoftware.com>.
Hi,
> mx.validators.EmailValidator does not accept ".email" domain
Want to raise a JIRA? Looks like lines 220-223 cause the issue.
if (lastDomain.length != 3 &&
lastDomain.length != 2 &&
lastDomain.length != 4 &&
lastDomain.length != 6)
{
results.push(new ValidationResult(
true, baseField, "invalidDomain",
validator.invalidDomainError));
return results;
}
With new domains like .photography, .international and .email this is not going to work.
Thanks,
Justin