module function · N/crypto
checkPasswordField()
crypto.checkPasswordField(options)
Checks whether a password in a record corresponds to the password entered by the user.
- Implementation
- Not started
- Design
- Open for proposals suggest how it should read
A
suitescript api
1crypto.checkPasswordField({2 fieldId: /* string, required */,3 line: /* number, optional */,4 recordId: /* number, required */,5 recordType: /* string, required */,6 sublistId: /* string, optional */,7 value: /* string, required */8});
| Parameter | Type | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| options.fieldId | string | required | ID of the password field. |
| options.line | number | optional | Zero-based line index of the password field if the password is on a line. |
| options.recordId | number | required | ID of the record that has the password field. |
| options.recordType | string | required | Type of record that has the password field. |
| options.sublistId | string | optional | ID of the sublist if the password field is on a sublist line. |
| options.value | string | required | Input password value to be checked against the password stored in the record. |
B
mynt syntax
No Mynt syntax yet.
Nothing in the language compiles to crypto.checkPasswordField(options) today. How should it read?
C
community proposals
Competing syntax for checkPasswordField, from GitHub Discussions. Select two or more to compare them side by side.
Loading proposals from GitHub…
D
suggest an alternative
Write the Mynt you wish you could write.
A good proposal shows the syntax, the SuiteScript it should become, and argues for it: why it is clearer, how it fits the rest of the language, what it makes harder.
- Clarity. Does it say what happens, without ceremony?
- Consistency. Does it read like
load,saveandRef[field]? - Expressiveness. Does it cover the cases people actually write?
- Honesty. Does it hide a NetSuite cost, such as governance, that a reader should see?