/* Package validator implements value validations for structs and individual fields based on tags. It can also handle Cross Field validation and even Cross Field Cross Struct validation for nested structs. Built In Validator myValidator = validator.NewValidator("validate", validator.BakedInValidators) errs := myValidator.ValidateStruct(//your struct) valErr := myValidator.ValidateFieldByTag(field, "omitempty,min=1,max=10") A simple example usage: type UserDetail { Details string `validate:"-"` } type User struct { Name string `validate:"required,max=60"` PreferedName string `validate:"omitempty,max=60"` Sub UserDetail } user := &User { Name: "", } // errs will contain a hierarchical list of errors // using the StructValidationErrors struct // or nil if no errors exist errs := myValidator.ValidateStruct(user) // in this case 1 error Name is required errs.Struct will be "User" errs.StructErrors will be empty <-- fields that were structs errs.Errors will have 1 error of type FieldValidationError NOTE: Anonymous Structs - they don't have names so expect the Struct name within StructValidationErrors to be blank. Error Handling The error can be used like so fieldErr, _ := errs["Name"] fieldErr.Field // "Name" fieldErr.ErrorTag // "required" Both StructValidationErrors and FieldValidationError implement the Error interface but it's intended use is for development + debugging, not a production error message. fieldErr.Error() // Field validation for "Name" failed on the "required" tag errs.Error() // Struct: User // Field validation for "Name" failed on the "required" tag Why not a better error message? because this library intends for you to handle your own error messages Why should I handle my own errors? Many reasons, for me building an internationalized application I needed to know the field and what validation failed so that I could provide an error in the users specific language. if fieldErr.Field == "Name" { switch fieldErr.ErrorTag case "required": return "Translated string based on field + error" default: return "Translated string based on field" } The hierarchical error structure is hard to work with sometimes.. Agreed Flatten function to the rescue! Flatten will return a map of FieldValidationError's but the field name will be namespaced. // if UserDetail Details field failed validation Field will be "Sub.Details" // for Name Field will be "Name" Custom Functions Custom functions can be added //Structure func customFunc(top interface{}, current interface{}, field interface{}, param string) bool { if whatever { return false } return true } myValidator.AddFunction("custom tag name", customFunc) // NOTES: using the same tag name as an existing function // will overwrite the existing one Cross Field Validation Cross Field Validation can be implemented, for example Start & End Date range validation // NOTE: when calling myValidator.validateStruct(val) val will be the top level struct passed // into the function // when calling myValidator.ValidateFieldByTagAndValue(val, field, tag) val will be // whatever you pass, struct, field... // when calling myValidator.ValidateFieldByTag(field, tag) val will be nil // // Because of the specific requirements and field names within each persons project that // uses this library it is likely that custom functions will need to be created for your // Cross Field Validation needs, however there are some build in Generic Cross Field validations, // see Baked In Validators and Tags below func isDateRangeValid(val interface{}, field interface{}, param string) bool { myStruct := val.(myStructType) if myStruct.Start.After(field.(time.Time)) { return false } return true } Multiple Validators Multiple validators on a field will process in the order defined type Test struct { Field `validate:"max=10,min=1"` } // max will be checked then min Bad Validator definitions are not handled by the library type Test struct { Field `validate:"min=10,max=0"` } // this definition of min max will never validate Baked In Validators and Tags NOTE: Baked In Cross field validation only compares fields on the same struct, if cross field + cross struct validation is needed your own custom validator should be implemented. Here is a list of the current built in validators: - Tells the validation to skip this struct field; this is particularily handy in ignoring embedded structs from being validated. (Usage: -) | This is the 'or' operator allowing multiple validators to be used and accepted. (Usage: rbg|rgba) <-- this would allow either rgb or rgba colors to be accepted. This can also be combined with 'and' for example ( Usage: omitempty,rgb|rgba) structonly When a field that is a nest struct in encountered and contains this flag any validation on the nested struct such as "required" will be run, but none of the nested struct fields will be validated. This is usefull if inside of you program you know the struct will be valid, but need to verify it has been assigned. omitempty Allows conitional validation, for example if a field is not set with a value (Determined by the required validator) then other validation such as min or max won't run, but if a value is set validation will run. (Usage: omitempty) required This validates that the value is not the data types default value. For numbers ensures value is not zero. For strings ensures value is not "". For slices, arrays, and maps, ensures the length is not zero. (Usage: required) len For numbers, max will ensure that the value is equal to the parameter given. For strings, it checks that the string length is exactly that number of characters. For slices, arrays, and maps, validates the number of items. (Usage: len=10) max For numbers, max will ensure that the value is less than or equal to the parameter given. For strings, it checks that the string length is at most that number of characters. For slices, arrays, and maps, validates the number of items. (Usage: max=10) min For numbers, min will ensure that the value is greater or equal to the parameter given. For strings, it checks that the string length is at least that number of characters. For slices, arrays, and maps, validates the number of items. (Usage: min=10) gt For numbers, this will ensure that the value is greater than the parameter given. For strings, it checks that the string length is greater than that number of characters. For slices, arrays and maps it validates the number of items. (Usage: gt=10) For time.Time ensures the time value is greater than time.Now.UTC() (Usage: gt) gte Same as 'min' above. Kept both to make terminology with 'len' easier (Usage: gte=10) For time.Time ensures the time value is greater than or equal to time.Now.UTC() (Usage: gte) lt For numbers, this will ensure that the value is less than the parameter given. For strings, it checks that the string length is less than that number of characters. For slices, arrays, and maps it validates the number of items. (Usage: lt=10) For time.Time ensures the time value is less than time.Now.UTC() (Usage: lt) lte Same as 'max' above. Kept both to make terminology with 'len' easier (Usage: lte=10) For time.Time ensures the time value is less than or equal to time.Now.UTC() (Usage: lte) gtfield Only valid for Numbers and time.Time types, this will validate the field value against another fields value either within a struct or passed in field. usage examples are for validation of a Start and End date: Validation on End field using ValidateByStruct Usage(gtfield=Start) Validating by field ValidateFieldByTagAndValue(start, end, "gtfield") gtefield Only valid for Numbers and time.Time types, this will validate the field value against another fields value either within a struct or passed in field. usage examples are for validation of a Start and End date: Validation on End field using ValidateByStruct Usage(gtefield=Start) Validating by field ValidateFieldByTagAndValue(start, end, "gtefield") ltfield Only valid for Numbers and time.Time types, this will validate the field value against another fields value either within a struct or passed in field. usage examples are for validation of a Start and End date: Validation on End field using ValidateByStruct Usage(ltfield=Start) Validating by field ValidateFieldByTagAndValue(start, end, "ltfield") ltefield Only valid for Numbers and time.Time types, this will validate the field value against another fields value either within a struct or passed in field. usage examples are for validation of a Start and End date: Validation on End field using ValidateByStruct Usage(ltefield=Start) Validating by field ValidateFieldByTagAndValue(start, end, "ltefield") alpha This validates that a strings value contains alpha characters only (Usage: alpha) alphanum This validates that a strings value contains alphanumeric characters only (Usage: alphanum) numeric This validates that a strings value contains a basic numeric value. basic excludes exponents etc... (Usage: numeric) hexadecimal This validates that a strings value contains a valid hexadecimal. (Usage: hexadecimal) hexcolor This validates that a strings value contains a valid hex color including hashtag (#) (Usage: hexcolor) rgb This validates that a strings value contains a valid rgb color (Usage: rgb) rgba This validates that a strings value contains a valid rgba color (Usage: rgba) hsl This validates that a strings value contains a valid hsl color (Usage: hsl) hsla This validates that a strings value contains a valid hsla color (Usage: hsla) email This validates that a strings value contains a valid email This may not conform to all possibilities of any rfc standard, but neither does any email provider accept all posibilities... (Usage: email) url This validates that a strings value contains a valid url This will accept any url the golang request uri accepts but must contain a schema for example http:// or rtmp:// (Usage: url) uri This validates that a strings value contains a valid uri This will accept any uri the golang request uri accepts (Usage: uri) Validator notes: regex a regex validator won't be added because commas and = signs can be part of a regex which conflict with the validation definitions, although workarounds can be made, they take away from using pure regex's. Furthermore it's quick and dirty but the regex's become harder to maintain and are not reusable, so it's as much a programming philosiphy as anything. In place of this new validator functions should be created; a regex can be used within the validator function and even be precompiled for better efficiency within regexes.go. And the best reason, you can sumit a pull request and we can keep on adding to the validation library of this package! Panics This package panics when bad input is provided, this is by design, bad code like that should not make it to production. type Test struct { TestField string `validate:"nonexistantfunction=1"` } t := &Test{ TestField: "Test" } myValidator.ValidateStruct(t) // this will panic */ package validator