(02-09-2016, 12:44 PM)Narf Wrote: (02-09-2016, 10:08 AM)skunkbad Wrote: (02-09-2016, 02:26 AM)Narf Wrote: Well, it's rare that someone doesn't use 'required' AND uses a callback at the same time, but this has been reported as a bug quite a few times.
I'm thinking of changing it in 3.1.
I'm not calling it a bug, and I do see how mwhitney's comment about a "conditionally required" field would present a legitimate reason to keep things as is. A simple note in the docs would be nice.
I know you're not calling it a bug (and it's not), but others have ... mwhitney's comment is pretty much the reasoning used behind closing such reports as invalid. Yet, it's obvious that this reasoning is obvious to nobody (myself included), hence why I'm thinking of changing it.
If you change it, what do you propose is a solution to the scenario that mwhitney presents? Maybe a new "not_required" rule?