requiredvalidator for checkbox

[SStory]

Is there no way to require a checkbox to be checked in ASP.NET?
The requiredvalidator control doesn't work for it--should I make a
server--roundtrip for that and check during the btn_click event? Is there
another way?

Thanks,
Shane

[Marina]

I've used a CustomValidator, and wrote some client side javascript to do
this type of check. That way you will avoid the roundtrip.

You could just as easily forgo the validators, and just write your own
routine for this, but I had some other validators on the page that were
being displayed in a validation summary, so it was more convenient.

"SStory >" <Shane_Story@online.msn.com <remove the 'online.' to send me
mail> wrote in message news:euuXhosVDHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> Is there no way to require a checkbox to be checked in ASP.NET?
> The requiredvalidator control doesn't work for it--should I make a
> server--roundtrip for that and check during the btn_click event? Is there
> another way?
>
> Thanks,
> Shane
>
>

[Marina]

custom validators do not require you to set that property. You can leave it
blank. Be sure to define a javascript function, and list it in the property
that speficies which client side function to run for the validation.

"SStory >" <Shane_Story@online.msn.com <remove the 'online.' to send me
mail> wrote in message news:ew$9nrsVDHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> Yeah I know, but when I click ControlToValidate for, the checkbox controls
> don't list????
>
> How did you handle that?
>
> "Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:errZRqsVDHA.652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> > I've used a CustomValidator, and wrote some client side javascript to do
> > this type of check. That way you will avoid the roundtrip.
> >
> > You could just as easily forgo the validators, and just write your own
> > routine for this, but I had some other validators on the page that were
> > being displayed in a validation summary, so it was more convenient.
> >
> > "SStory >" <Shane_Story@online.msn.com <remove the 'online.' to send me
> > mail> wrote in message news:euuXhosVDHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...

> > > Is there no way to require a checkbox to be checked in ASP.NET?
> > > The requiredvalidator control doesn't work for it--should I make a
> > > server--roundtrip for that and check during the btn_click event? Is

> there

> > > another way?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Shane
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>

[SStory]

Muchas gracias! :)

I am very glad that someone answered that question for me.

Shane

"Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OHCzSusVDHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...

> custom validators do not require you to set that property. You can leave

it

> blank. Be sure to define a javascript function, and list it in the

property

> that speficies which client side function to run for the validation.
>
> "SStory >" <Shane_Story@online.msn.com <remove the 'online.' to send me
> mail> wrote in message news:ew$9nrsVDHA.2104@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

> > Yeah I know, but when I click ControlToValidate for, the checkbox

controls

> > don't list????
> >
> > How did you handle that?
> >
> > "Marina" <zlatkinam@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:errZRqsVDHA.652@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

> > > I've used a CustomValidator, and wrote some client side javascript to

do

> > > this type of check. That way you will avoid the roundtrip.
> > >
> > > You could just as easily forgo the validators, and just write your own
> > > routine for this, but I had some other validators on the page that

were

> > > being displayed in a validation summary, so it was more convenient.
> > >
> > > "SStory >" <Shane_Story@online.msn.com <remove the 'online.' to send

me

> > > mail> wrote in message news:euuXhosVDHA.2040@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > > Is there no way to require a checkbox to be checked in ASP.NET?
> > > > The requiredvalidator control doesn't work for it--should I make a
> > > > server--roundtrip for that and check during the btn_click event? Is

> > there

> > > > another way?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Shane
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >

> >
> >

>
>