Mar 7th, 2010, 1:29 PM
Hi,
actually, the issue is with the way this example code has been constructed. The values In the rules are separated by commas and the script looks for the second value in each rule for the fieldnames. As such, the second value in the same_as rule is the same as the field to match against. The same_as rule should be applied in a different way, maybe like so same_as[fieldname] instead of same_as, fieldname.
Just a thought. As is, the custom example is flawed, since the second value in the same_as rule is the field to match against. Thus it won't return a rule that corresponds to the second field.
actually, the issue is with the way this example code has been constructed. The values In the rules are separated by commas and the script looks for the second value in each rule for the fieldnames. As such, the second value in the same_as rule is the same as the field to match against. The same_as rule should be applied in a different way, maybe like so same_as[fieldname] instead of same_as, fieldname.
Just a thought. As is, the custom example is flawed, since the second value in the same_as rule is the field to match against. Thus it won't return a rule that corresponds to the second field.
(Mar 7th, 2010, 11:21 AM)Ben Wrote: Hey guys,
Yeah - if I understand this properly, I think Martin's right: you'd probably need a custom rule to change the focus behaviour. I guess just switching rootpassword and rootpassword2 in the same_as rule wouldn't work?
But just so I'm totally clear: the problem is usability; you think that in the case of someone entering two different passwords should validate by always focusing on the FIRST password field? I gotta say, that sounds pretty reasonable to me... I wouldn't object to updating the script to behave like that.
- Ben