Form entries are incomplete or invalid. Form entries are incomplete or invalid.

[AlexCraig]

Note:  I posted this earlier, but forgot to tag it with topics & I don't see anyway to edit my post.  I apologize for the duplication.  But it is not showing up under discussions.

Greetings all!

In CF 4.51 the following validation code:

"<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="minPermSal_range" VALUE="MAX=999999;MIN=10000">"

Produced the server side response if your field entry was invalid:

*********************************************
Form Entries Incomplete or Invalid

One or more problems exist with the data you have entered.

The value entered for the Minpermsal field must be between 10000 and 999999 (your entry was 5).

Use the Back button on your web browser to return to the previous page and correct the listed problems.

*******************************************

In CF2023 we get:

*********************************************
Form entries are incomplete or invalid.

"<ul><li>The range for the MINPERMSAL field ('5') must have numeric values. </li></ul> Go <a href="javascript&colon;history.back()">back</a> and correct the problem."

***********************************

To begin with the validation message is incorrect the field in question is defined as a VARCHAR field both in SQL/Server & in CF.

That aside, I don't suppose there is a CF Admin setting that I missed that would have this function as it did in 4.51?

I took a look at other previous posts involving "Form Entries" & I suspect there is not. If not, I guess I will need to wirte a ton of JS validation code to replace what was a relatively simple way of validating entry fields. <sigh/ugh>

As always, thanks in advance for any help.

[Charlie Arehart]

Alex, when I first wrote, I focused on how CF form validation is done via cfinput (and I showed how even the cf docs for 4.51 showed that), and how that approach requires a comma-separated min/max value for its RANGE feature. I wondered if instead you had some other js library using the attributes of the input tag as you showed it. 

Then I noticed it was both a hidden input,with a NAME field ending with _range as a suffix, AND that validation in the VALUE attribute. That reminded me there was another, older form of field validation cf did that was entirely server side (thus your message). I've not seen it in years, but it was coming back to me. 🙂 

And sure enough, I found another cf 4.51 docs page on that, showing the min/max specified as you do. Note that it's not in the cfml reference, because it's not a cf tag, but a way cf handled form fields based on the suffix of their names, as with _range in your example. 

Anyway, the current docs for that page don't show that range being supported at all, which suggests Adobe deprecated it...but clearly it's still "working" for you. 

Can you try just changing the value to "10000,999999" to see if that works? I'm on a phone so can't easily test that myself. 

[Charlie Arehart]

Alex, if you may have gotten notified about my first reply, I've found more info. Hold off on replying to what I said until I correct that. 🙂 

[AlexCraig]

Hey Charlie,

Thanks for both replies.

FYI, there is no CFINPUT in my current code.

Depending upon your next reply, I can reply with all the code which is relevent to this datafield.

Best regards!

[Charlie Arehart]

See my revision now.

[AlexCraig]

OK Sir,

Changing the code to:

"<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="minPermSal_range" VALUE="10000,999999">"

Gives:

Form entries are incomplete or invalid.

<ul><li>No min/max range specified for the field MINPERMSAL (range: '5'). </li></ul> Go <a href="javascript&colon;history.back()">back</a> and correct the problem.

Obviously, it wants the MIN/MAX entries.

Using the code:

"<INPUT TYPE="hidden" NAME="minPermSal_range" VALUE="MIN=10000,MAX=999999">"

Gives:

Form entries are incomplete or invalid.

<ul><li>The value entered for the MINPERMSAL field (5) must be between 10000.0 and 999999.0. </li></ul> Go <a href="javascript&colon;history.back()">back</a> and correct the problem.

Well, at least using the comma in place of the semi-colon got rid of the "must be numeric" part of the response.   😉

It was worth a shot.  Thanks.

PS  You were obviously able to edit your first reply.  For future reference, do I have the ability to edit my posts?  If so, I don't see an icon or link to do so?

[Charlie Arehart]

Oh well, it was worth a shot. Again, with the modern cf docs not referring to that old approach, we can't know what is needed to get that to work.

First, you could hope Adobe may see this. Or you could email cfsup@adobe.com and ask for help--pointing them to this thread for more context. It would be great if they may answer that here, but likely they'd reply directly. If you solve it, let us know here.

Second, you could switch to using cfinput/cfform, but I appreciate that may be a challenge.

Finally, as for editing your notes here, that is seemingly a privilege that's granted in some automated fashion, likely a combination of duration of membership (I see from your profile that you've been here a few years)  and posting level (you've only got a couple threads). You can ask them about it also. 

[AlexCraig]

Per your suggestion, I sent an email to cfsup@adobe.com concerning this issue.

I'll let y'all know how it shakes out.

Once again, thank you for your input/suggestions.

I have to give this migration additional thought.  Looks like this could be a big bite to chew on just for an SSL cert.  Albeit, there might be one additional benefit.

Currently, we use a custom CFX tag (doctotxt.cfx) which extracts text documents from Word uploads automatically to populate the Verifty collections.  We outsourced that endeavor to a C++ guru to create the .dll file.  😉

Back in 1997 when this code was written .pdf docs were primarily used by educational institutions and rarely by our corporate clients or candidates.  Apparently, Adobe's marketing strategy of giving it away paid off and as you all know, .pdf docs are in wide use.

Anyway, the current version of Word which we have running on the server we are using for testing CF2023 will "read" .pdf docs.  If our custom tag will work on it, it would save us some grunt work to be able to add .pdf docs to the searchable collection.  I was a bit surprised to see it worked on .docx files a decade after we launched the app.  Aside:  As a bonus, the chap who did the initial CF development sold a bunch of our doctotxt.cfx tags.  He did such a good job on our app and was responsible for the marketing that I agreed to let him keep the proceeds.  😉

[AlexCraig]

Forgot to add ....

I've only been in the CF community a few days.  My profile shows years as I've been an Adobe client since I purchased the Pro version of Adobe which we use to convert .pdf files to .docx files that are sytems needs.

[AlexCraig]

Hey Charlie,

Saw your comment on my Bug Report on the Tracker.

Don't know if you are notified of addtional comments.  If not, I added this response to your comment on the Bug Tracker.

*******************************

Hey Charlie, With respect to "using_required", if memory serves I had to choose a generic example from a drop down list which was not editable. Thus, I chose one which was closest to the mark.

Comment by Alex C.

***************************

It occurs to me that I may be able to save myself a lot of time and headaches if I can get them to sell me a license for the last version of CF9 . If they were still using the same verison of Verity & the "magic" hidden validation code still worked And if that version will run on a Windows 2016 Standard Server so I can obtain an SSLcert.

Would kill all kinds of birds with one stone. Probably wishful thinking on my part.

[AlexCraig]

For your amusment .... 

Here is Subject of my email to support:  "Migrating From CF 4.51 to CF2023"  I also mentioned 4.51 in the 1st line of the body.

Here is the response I got from support at the end of the day ....

"Please let us know the version of ColdFusion from which you are planning to Migrate to ColdFusion 2023"

At this point I am not very sanguine about much assistance from them with the issue.  😉

[Mehwish33932427bshw]

I am currently in the process of migrating from ColdFusion 4.51 to ColdFusion 2023, as mentioned in the subject line and the first line of my initial inquiry. However, it seems there might be a misunderstanding, as your response requests the version I am planning to migrate from.

To clarify, I am migrating from ColdFusion 4.51 to ColdFusion 2023. If you require any additional information or if there's a specific process I should follow, please advise.

[AlexCraig]

Mehwish,

In response to your email with the Subject "Did you get the answer you needed?"

After a bit of back & forth with support to include some screen shots, I was told to create a Bug report via your Tracker link.

I created CF-4220336 on 1/19.  Have not heard back as yet.

[emly34979826kwcw]

In CF2023, the validation message for the Minpermsal field is inaccurate. The field is defined as VARCHAR in both SQL/Server and CF. Is there a CF Admin setting I missed to restore the functionality from CF 4.51? If not, I might need to write extensive JS validation code to replace the previously simple field validation. Thanks for any assistance.

[EMILYBLUNT]

I am in the process of migrating from ColdFusion 4.51 to ColdFusion 2023, as stated in the subject line and the beginning of my initial inquiry. However, there may have been some confusion, as your response asked for the version I'm migrating from.

To clarify, I am indeed moving from ColdFusion 4.51 to ColdFusion 2023.

[BKBK]

I think that the presence of the semi-colon(;) is the cause of the problem.

VALUE="MAX=999999;MIN=10000"

As @AlexCraig has already shown, replacing the semi-colon with a comma(,) solves the problem. The following (a space in place of the semi-colon) would also work

VALUE="MIN=10000 MAX=999999"

Guess what?

Searching further, I found that the two currently documented delimiters to use are comma and space.  See the documentation on cfinput's range attribute and the page "Validating form data using hidden fields".

[AlexCraig]

It does not solve the major problem. It only solves the "numeric" reference.

And the latest word from the bug tracker is that the bug has been confirmed & they are continuing to investigate.

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Here are screen shots that illuminate the problem.

As you can see, CF 4.51 renders a user friendly validation screen and CF 2023 using a comma does not.

[BKBK]

Got your point, @AlexCraig . There are actually two issues: (1) the display of the HTML as text, and (2) the incorrect response when the delimiter is the semi-colon.

My response was about the second.

[emly34979826kwcw]

For the discrepancy in validation messages between ColdFusion 4.51 and 2023, first check ColdFusion Administrator settings for relevant configurations. If none are found, adapt to changes by implementing client-side JavaScript validation for simplicity and customized error messages. Given the VARCHAR field, ensure the validation logic handles non-numeric inputs. Although an additional task, client-side validation enhances user experience with instant feedback. Stay informed by monitoring official ColdFusion documentation and community forums for insights into changes and best practices in the latest versions.

[EMILYBLUNT]

The discrepancy in validation messages between ColdFusion 4.51 and 2023 may stem from platform updates. No CF Admin setting likely replicates the 4.51 behavior. Adapt by implementing JavaScript validation to mimic previous functionality. Given the VARCHAR field, ensure validation handles non-numeric inputs. While an additional task, client-side validation enhances user experience with instant feedback. Monitor ColdFusion documentation and forums for insights into changes and best practices. Remember, thorough testing is crucial to ensure validation accuracy and user satisfaction.

[AlexCraig]

CF Support has verified that this is a bug and is tagged as "Being Investigated" in the Bug Tracker.

How long the investigation process will take and what steps will be taken is unknown at this point.

[EMILYBLUNT]

ColdFusion 4.51 and the latest version in 2023 could result from platform advancements. It's unlikely that any CF Admin setting mirrors the 4.51 behavior. To address this, consider incorporating JavaScript validation to replicate the previous functionality. Specifically for VARCHAR fields, ensure the validation accommodates non-numeric inputs. Though an extra task, implementing client-side validation provides immediate feedback, enhancing the user experience. Stay updated with ColdFusion documentation and forums for insights into changes and recommended practices. Keep in mind that thorough testing is essential to guarantee the precision of validation and overall user satisfaction.