84

Simple field validation

It would be great to be able to specify simple validation for fields.  Ranges for numbers, regexp for text (for example).  This would help enforce naming conventions that our workflows depend on.

60 comments

  • 0
    Avatar
    yann le paih
    +1
  • 0
    Avatar
    Hugh Macdonald

    I've already added a "Me too" (a couple of years ago), but just to +1 it again.

  • 0
    Avatar
    yann le paih
    Best solution for us would to have optional tank support but simple field validation support could be powerfull feature.
    We have a lot of naming error in asset, shot or task creation who conflict with tank field validation. This break the pipe and create dirty tank cache.
    Once again +1
    Thanks
    Yann
  • 0
    Avatar
    Mahendra Gangaiwar

    +1

  • 0
    Avatar
    Alon Gibli

    +1

    This is a high(est) priority feature for us. I've filled out the survey, basically just echoing what Patrick has already said.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Craig Allison

    +1 - this would be incredibly useful for us!

  • 2
    Avatar
    Sam Richards

    The lack of this feature just bit me again. Any news on this?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Asi Sudai

    Joining on that... any news guys and girls? 

  • 0
    Avatar
    Sam Richards

    Did you get enough samples from the survey you posted a year ago? If so, could you post the results?

    Should we be submitting multiple entries per field?

    Sam.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Brandon Foster

    Hi Folks,

    Thanks for pinging the thread, and to those of you who filled out the survey. We've been compiling the results to distill the most common use cases. The most consistent theme we saw centered around adhering to file system naming conventions, which is helping to narrow our focus on a v1 feature set. One question that has come up that would be great to get a straw poll for is if such rules could be restricted just to the names of entities, or if it would be needed on all text fields in Shotgun. What's the group's thoughts on that?

  • 1
    Avatar
    Sam Richards

    Just being able to have a regex pattern for *any* text field would be huge, especially since we are sometimes constructing paths from more than just the name (or code). Another alternative is if its easier just to have client-side validation everywhere, that would be a start, since it feels like you need it:

    1: In the GUI for the +Entity buttons.

    2: In the excel import

    3: in the API.

    Just doing (1) and (2) for a start would be a big step forward...

    Sam.

  • 2
    Avatar
    Alon Gibli

    Putting in my vote for "any text field", we have non-name/code text fields that we want to validate since they correspond to parts of our path structure.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Gary Chadwick

    Hey Brandon

    Would it be possible to make it a different type of field? "Validated text" or something like that? Given the option, we'd definitely like to create new fields with validation.

    However for sure, being able to have it on entity names would be our primary use for it. So having that would be definitely be very useful.

    Cheers

  • 1
    Avatar
    Travis Mosley

    +1

  • 1
    Avatar
    Darragh Duffy

    +1

  • 2
    Avatar
    Alon Gibli

    A tale from production:

    "[...] there was an invalid character in the asset name that looked like a space, but was actually the unicode character U+00A0 (non-breaking space). So seems like a copy/paste gone awry."

    Just one of many ways in which lack of text field validation has bitten us.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Halil Mehmet

    Any recent official statement on this feature?

     

    This has always been on our wish list, but since moving to toolkit it's a must. Once toolkit registers a folder to an entity, renaming an entity for example involves more than just renaming the field. There are many solutions we can and have implemented to prevent this but really the best way is to fail the creation of the entity or edit of the field in the first place.

    For reference most entities are created or fields edited via CSV importing.

     

     

     

     

  • 0
    Avatar
    Mike Hendricks

    +1 I've spent half of today addressing issues resulting from not being able to enforce a simple regex validator on text fields. When you define a text column, showing a text input where you can type a javascript and python compliant regex that shotgun use to validate the entire text value.

    We are starting to move to using Maya and it's very restrictive with object names.

    Ideally it should support full text regex. [A-Za-z][\w]+ would prevent starting a Asset Name with a number and make it valid for Maya.

  • 4
    Avatar
    miker

    +10  We keep getting bit by the lack of this feature.  It's quite frankly a huge embarrassment for Shotgun that this highly requested and relatively simple request hasn't been addressed for NINE YEARS.  Please address it.

  • 1
    Avatar
    Christiaan Scholtz

    +1

    We just had the problem of some invisible character in the name screwing everything up. Please implement ASAP.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Alexander Chiang

    Has this been implemented yet? I'd also like to suggest again, some validation to prevent naming duplicate entities and assets.

  • 0
    Avatar
    miker

    The lack of this feature has just caused another problem that took valuable time to track down and fix.

  • 0
    Avatar
    Richmond, Andrew

    Another use-case for validation that would be helpful: 

    In order to mark a task as Complete, a particular field needs to have a certain value (or at least not be blank). This will help us make sure that people are including all the necessary information to downstream disciplines when they are marking their tasks as complete. 

  • 0
    Avatar
    Aldo Ruggiero

    Is there any update to this validation, I am new to shotgun and it looks like something as important as this should be addressed sooner rather than later, has anybody found a work around, hacking into the callbacks or just opening a QT window every time an task, shot field is created?

  • 1
    Avatar
    miker

    The lack of this feature has just caused another problem that took valuable time to track down and fix.

  • 4
    Avatar
    Edward Spencer

    from 8.2 release notes:

    "New entity forms can now be configured to include hint text to users during data entry. [SG-8641]"

     

    ..so close.

    Any advance on getting the actual feature we've been requesting for 10 YEARS?

  • 0
    Avatar
    Eleroy

    +10, too easy to have typos in important fields

  • 0
    Avatar
    Tobias Pfeiffer

    +1 for a regex solution that ideally could be defined in the Site Prefs per (arbitrary text) field

  • 0
    Avatar
    miker

    The lack of this feature has just caused yet another problem that took valuable time to track down and fix.

  • -1
    Avatar
    Jack James

    Hi everyone, we know this is very important to you all, but just to repeat what was said on this topic at the previous advisory board, whenever we've done a thorough investigation of what it would take to support something like this it seems that it would need a huge investment on our part, which would put other development we have planned at risk. We've also heard from different clients that they have different requirements or expectations of how this should work, and there are security and performance concerns we would need to mitigate as well. Sorry that's not the answer everyone is hoping for right now, but we are highly aware of the need and continue to look into ways to solve the problem.

    Although we are not investing in field validation right now, we would like to draw your attention to a feature we rolled out in Shotgun 8.2- “New entity forms can now be configured to include hint text to users during data entry". This won’t actually perform any input validation, but it will at least let your teams know what the expected inputs are when they enter data via the new entity forms. It might not solve all of the same problems, or prevent all of the issues you have, but if you take advantage of this feature and you have any feedback, please get in touch!

Please sign in to leave a comment.