Incorrect input mask

Created on 22 November 2022, about 2 years ago
Updated 24 October 2023, about 1 year ago

Problem/Motivation

At the moment, this module uses a incorrect format for requesting the RNN (xxxxxx-xxx-xx).
It should be displayed as: xxxxxx-xxx.xx

Proposed resolution

Update the 'input-mask' attribute.

✨ Feature request
Status

RTBC

Version

2.2

Component

Code

Created by

πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium ant1

Live updates comments and jobs are added and updated live.
Sign in to follow issues

Comments & Activities

Not all content is available!

It's likely this issue predates Contrib.social: some issue and comment data are missing.

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium pieter-e1

    Updated the first patch to add separating dots in the date of birth (xx.xx.xx-xxx.xx).

  • Status changed to Needs review over 1 year ago
  • Status changed to RTBC over 1 year ago
  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium borisson_ Mechelen, πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ

    I agree with the change made in #3, this looks like how it appears on my ID card as well.

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium BramDriesen Belgium πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ

    Tested and looks good to me!

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium FreMun

    I am open to adjusting the input mask of the field. However, I am more in favor of having the input mask determined via the field settings. This way, the site owner can decide for himself which input mask he prefers.

    I propose the following input masks:

    • xxxxxx-xxx-xx (current)
    • xx.xx.xx-xxx.xx (as shown on eID)
  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium BramDriesen Belgium πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ

    I'm in favour of dropping the current mask. The only official one is "yy.mm.dd-xxx.cd"

    Here is a regex in case anyone needs it: https://docs.trellix.com/bundle/data-loss-prevention-11.10.x-classificat...

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium borisson_ Mechelen, πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ

    I'm in favour of dropping the current mask. The only official one is "yy.mm.dd-xxx.cd" I believe

    I agree with Bram, I don't understand why you would use something that is not the official standard.

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium borisson_ Mechelen, πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ
  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium ant1

    Had to do with the request of our client. They need to receive this data in my suggested format.
    I don't mind creating a local patch just for our use-case; I follow the preference of the majority.

  • πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺBelgium BramDriesen Belgium πŸ‡§πŸ‡ͺ

    I just noticed that the original request and patch actually also is in a different format.

    So we have following situations/requests/...:

    • xxxxxx-xxx-xx (current)
    • xx.xx.xx-xxx.xx (as shown on eID, aka the only official one) --> Patch #3
    • xxxxxx-xxx.xx (suggestion from this issue, replacing the last dash with a dot) --> Patch #1
    • xxxxxxxxxxx (without characters, actually a use case on one of our projects when sending the data, but solved with a token) --> Issue [#3389903

    I'm still in favour of dropping the current one and only having the official one as that's also how it shows on your EID. But we should make sure this is overridable with a hook or something and document this.

Production build 0.71.5 2024