I’ve followed the example for Using the Built-In Constraints to Make a New Constraint in the Java EE Tutorial.
Since Email is a built-in, I switched it to USPhoneNumber, but very similar to the example annotating the USPhoneNumber with a @Pattern giving a regular expression for a phone number:
import javax.validation.Constraint;
import javax.validation.Payload;
import javax.validation.constraints.Pattern;
import java.lang.annotation.Documented;
import java.lang.annotation.Retention;
import java.lang.annotation.Target;
import static java.lang.annotation.ElementType.*;
import static java.lang.annotation.RetentionPolicy.RUNTIME;
@Pattern(regexp = "\\+1-\\d{3}-\\d{3}-\\d{4}")
@Target({ FIELD, METHOD, PARAMETER, ANNOTATION_TYPE, TYPE_USE })
@Retention(RUNTIME)
@Constraint(validatedBy = {})
@Documented
public @interface USPhoneNumber {
String message() default "{com.XYZ.validation.USPhoneNumber.message}";
Class<?>[] groups() default {};
Class<? extends Payload>[] payload() default {};
}
I then applied the @USPhoneNumber to a bean field and tested. What surprised me is that when a phone number doesn’t match the regular expression, I do not get a USPhoneNumber violation, instead I get a Pattern violation.
ConstraintViolationImpl{interpolatedMessage=‘must match “+1-\d{3}-\d{3}-\d{4}”’, propertyPath=phoneNumber, rootBeanClass=class com.XYZ.bean.PersonBean, messageTemplate=‘{javax.validation.constraints.Pattern.message}’}
I really think the constraint violation should be the USPhoneNumber with its associated message.
Anything I’ve done wrong here that’s preventing me from seeing a USPhoneNumber violation, or is this the way its supposed to work?
IMHO, what would be ideal is if this were handled analogous to nested exceptions, where I would get a USPhoneNumber violation caused by a Pattern violation.