fix(textfield): reportValidity() doesn't work

[tveinfeld]

https://jira.vonage.com/browse/VIV-481

[github-actions]

🚀

Latest successful build of the PR deployed here.

🚀

[yinonov]

I want to deep dive on this, just for "education". would u please add relevant tests? it is quite a fragile component now

[gullerya]

I suggest to slightly simplify the implementation (and also fix some more case which is not yet fixed, case when value = 0 or empty string):

	if (value === undefined) {
		target.removeAttribute(attributeName);
	} else {
		const normalizedValue = asEmpty ? '' : String(value);
		if (target.getAttribute(attributeName) !== normalizedValue) {
			target.setAttribute(attributeName, normalizedValue);
		}
	}

Added tests

[tveinfeld]

I suggest to slightly simplify the implementation (and also fix some more case which is not yet fixed, case when value = 0 or empty string):

	if (value === undefined) {
		target.removeAttribute(attributeName);
	} else {
		const normalizedValue = asEmpty ? '' : String(value);
		if (target.getAttribute(attributeName) !== normalizedValue) {
			target.setAttribute(attributeName, normalizedValue);
		}
	}

As discussed "online", I'd rather keep the original function's interface/contract with user as is for now, changing it would be out of this PR's scope.

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication

[tveinfeld]

@yinon: I have used @gullerya's regression tests, feel free to review again 🙂

[gullerya]

The suggestion about the above implementation is still effective from my POV :)
To not change the signature, can remove the === undefined part, but still the implementation is much simpler and readable, IMHO.

[tveinfeld]

The suggestion about the above implementation is still effective from my POV :)
To not change the signature, can remove the === undefined part, but still the implementation is much simpler and readable, IMHO.

I would argue about the simplicity and readability of your suggested code, plus I don't want to introduce any new logic, so I'd rather not alter the PR. LMK if it's an absolute "no-go" for you - or open a separate PR for the added new logic suggested.