Use validation functions from the libphonenumber library

I've added the additional constraint. Please test and review.

added a new patch. Please review

reroll the patch. Please review

Reroll the patch. kindly review.

What’s the difference between the patches and the MR?

Also it would be nice to provide an interdigital or explanation why you post a changed patch.

It is counter productive now and takes time to analyse what is going on. What patch does need review or is it the MR? If patches become obsolete, you can hide them.

So please go through the patches and MR and provide some feedback what is going on.

Patches is against the alpha version while Merge request is against the dev branch. Previously i was created patch from dev branch and codebase is on alpha version so it was not getting applied thats why i have created patch from alpha branch and now it is working.
@tim-diels

suryabhi → closed merge request !9

I tried different approach in the recent. Kindly review

The last submitted patch, 5: 3376601-3.patch, failed testing. View results →
- codesniffer_fixes.patch Interdiff of automated coding standards fixes only.

Patch applied. Done

Am I missing something here? Why is this set as fixed? And still very chaotic communication. Please try to not open 2 MR’s and have so many patches without providing info what is changed.

@malcomio can you help with what is correct here?

suryabhi → closed merge request !8

No need to review the patches - they don't relate to the dev branch.

The two merge requests are alternative approaches:

MR 8 - uses $this->context->addViolation
MR 10 - uses $form_state->setError

In our implementation we encountered issues with the addViolation approach, where the errors were displaying twice (although that may have been because of some code in a custom module).

To me, it seems cleaner to use addViolation, as this is consistent with the rest of the module.

suryabhi → reopened merge request !8

Sorry for the more work, but needs rebasing.