Service Manager > Progressive Capture > Validating Two identical form fields

[Gavin James - SDDC]

Afternoon,

I'm currently creating a Custom form within Progressive Capture for my customers to complete.

Is it possible to develop some logic that doesn't allow the user to submit the form without two particular fields being identical? 

The fields are just standard text fields.  

 

e.g.  If Fields A = Test Account, then Field B would need to be "Test Account" to allow the form to submit.

Like what you do what you have to enter you email address in twice on online forms.

Thanks

[James Ainsworth]

Hi Gavin,

Thanks for your post.  I've been doing some tests to see what was possible.  I was initially looking to see if there is anything we can do with the regex validation.  So far I haven't had any luck.  I'll do a bit more testing and see if I can come up with anything.

Regards,

Jmaes

[Gavin James - SDDC]

Thanks for the update James, yes I looked around at the regex validation also.  I keep thinking my approach to the problem is wrong, open to suggestions on different ways of validating fields. 

[Dave Woodhead]

I'd be interested in this too. We have a number of scenarios where rules based on PCF responses would be very useful, e.g. testing that a "start date" falls after an "end date" and suchlike.

[Steve Giller]

Just to confirm that this has been added to the backlog, but there are currently no timescales attached.

[Gavin James - SDDC]

@Steve Giller  Hi Steve,  just wondering if any timescales have been set for this development?  Thanks Gavin

[James Ainsworth]

Hi @Gavin James - SDDC

I believe that there may be something already in place for you.  This would have been made available with the update to Intelligent Capture v2 a couple of weeks ago.  This won't work if you have v2 turned off. The regex validation string is going to look like ^&[global.form_ID.field_ID]$ where you replace form_ID with the ID of the form where the field that you want to match is configured, and then replace the field_ID with the ID of the field that you want to match. 

 

For Example, here is the Capture Form...

Then when you edit Field 2, in the regex expression you would put ^&[global.TestValue.field_1]$

And in the capture...

Doesn't match

Matches

 

I hope that makes sense and is what you are looking for.

[samwoo]

On 5/6/2022 at 11:47 PM, James Ainsworth said:

Hi @Gavin James - SDDC

I believe that there may be something already in place for you.  This would have been made available with the update to Intelligent Capture v2 a couple of weeks ago.  This won't work if you have v2 turned off. The regex validation string is going to look like ^&[global.form_ID.field_ID]$ where you replace form_ID with the ID of the form where the field that you want to match is configured, and then replace the field_ID with the ID of the field that you want to match. 

 

For Example, here is the Capture Form...

Then when you edit Field 2, in the regex expression you would put ^&[global.TestValue.field_1]$

And in the capture...

Doesn't match

Matches

 

I hope that makes sense and is what you are looking for.

This helped me loads. Is this (and any other useful information) anywhere on the Wiki? If not, could it be added please?

Thanks,

Samuel

[James Ainsworth]

4 hours ago, samwoo said:

Is this (and any other useful information) anywhere on the Wiki?

This feature has just been released, and I wanted to make sure it was working for the above mentioned scenarios first before documenting.  Let me know how you get on with this  and I'll get the documentation added. 

[samwoo]

1 hour ago, James Ainsworth said:

This feature has just been released, and I wanted to make sure it was working for the above mentioned scenarios first before documenting.  Let me know how you get on with this  and I'll get the documentation added. 

Its a great feature, something I was certain we were not able to do yet, and I told my colleagues last week... so it was a nice surprise to find that this is now possible in PCF 2.

I can confirm that it does the comparisons fine, but on the second field with the regex check on it, the field border sometimes stays red but no error messages show, which indicates that the match does work.

 

Could this feature also allow us to populate other fields using the value of another field?

For example in a New Starter request, we ask for their First Name. Throught the forms, it would be nice to say something like:

What Team will "Joe" be joining?

Instead of repeating "New Starter" in every question... 

Great addition!

Thanks,

Samuel

[samwoo]

@James Ainsworth here is a screenshot showing where the two values match and I can proceed with the ticket, but the red border still shows despite the match

[Steve Giller]

@samwoo Just as a check - did you copy, paste, then screenshot?

I recall that there was a scenario where the check for a "required" value did not update until you changed the field contents, and (I think this is a browser thing rather than a Hornbill thing) when pasting into the field it doesn't register as a change.
Try any other action (Tabbing/clicking out of the field should be enough) and if this removes the border it's that issue.

[samwoo]

Hi @Steve Giller,

Sorry I forgot to mention in my previous email, this border still shows even if I'm on a different question, regardless of tabbing out or clicking on another question.

I didn't copy and paste, I typed the text in manually.

I added in a regex check on the first field as well so they can both check each other which is why they are both showing red.  And you can see my focus is on the question at the bottom.

I'm using the latest version of Microsoft Edge if that helps.

Thanks,

Samuel

[Steve Giller]

Ah, that'll be one for the Developers then.

If it's not preventing you from continuing it's probably just a formatting thing.

[samwoo]

5 minutes ago, Steve Giller said:

Ah, that'll be one for the Developers then.

If it's not preventing you from continuing it's probably just a formatting thing.

Yeah that's my thinking as well - it's definitely allowing me to move on with the request so at least it works.  Fantastic addition!

[Gavin James - SDDC]

This works great,  many thanks for your support on this!

 

Thanks

 

Gavin