Add support for denied_with and denied_without

[erma07]

Package version eg. v8, v9:

v10

Issue, Question or Enhancement:

Add support for:
denied_with
denied_with_all
denied_without
denied_without_all

[andig]

Aren't those similar to fieldexcludes?

[erma07]

Played around with FieldExcludes https://play.golang.org/p/rhRupsq_cnM and strings.Contains(field.String(), currentField.String()) is not what I need.

The idea for eg denied_with is that if there is x then there must not be a y and the idea for denied_without is that if x is not there then y must not be there.

[andig]

The idea for eg denied_with is that if there is x then there must not be a y and the idea for denied_without is that if x is not there then y must not be there.

You mean

The idea for eg FieldExcludes is that if there is x then there must not be a y and the idea for denied_without is that if x is not there then y must not be there.

?

[erma07]

Since FieldExcludes currently uses strings.Contains, means it has a purpose - x string must not contain y string. I don't know if anyone uses it like that though.
fmt.Println(strings.Contains("xy", "y")) -> true
fmt.Println(strings.Contains("x", "y")) -> false

I proposed clear names and analogy for required_with, required_with_all, required_without, required_without_all (most of the same code can be used) for creating denied_with, denied_with_all, denied_without, denied_without_all.

And the idea is denied_with is that if there is x then there must not be a y and the idea for denied_without is that if x is not there then y must not be there.

[andig]

And the idea is denied_with is that if there is x then there must not be a y and the idea for denied_without is that if x is not there then y must not be there.

Agreed. I need this too, actually. I've probably misread fieldexcludes in #662 then. The current description of what it provides is not very clear.

[andig]

I would probably have expected excluded instead of denied, but I‘d be happy to see this supported, it‘s really missing.