@test, successful testing.

Tested by creating custom validation handler for the field and validating the field by getting the elements property using the element passed in the handler along with the field value.

I had faced the need to pass the element in the custom validator in following case:
In case of IE 8, place holder attribute is not supported and as an alternative, script needs to be added that will add the place-holder text as value, so in this case, the element passed in the custom validator comes in handy, where we can check if the value of the element is same as the element's placeholder text.

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/4672.

@test, OK. Tested user, module, menu, and article form validations

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/4672.

Thank you guys for testing.

I am still thinking about whether to extend the existing handlers' signature and add 'element' as second parameter. This would reflect the capability of handler much better and make accessing that parameter easier as one doesn't need to check the arguments array first for whether that parameter was passed or not. It was therefore fadter an easier accessible.

What do you think?

This comment was created with the J!Tracker Application at issues.joomla.org/joomla-cms/4672.

@itbra Do you still plan to extend the handlers' signature? Just keep in mind it needs to be backwards compatible.

The PR has some issues too, you probably need to update your PR to the current status of the staging branch.

I don't see any backward compatibility issues since the second parameter Has never been exited before and we are talking about javascript. Not passing it won't cause the handler to fail. Existing handlers have not been changed in the way they validate. They only receive a second argument. Since they appear to not depend on it (yet) they simply don't use it.
However, since programmers might implement custom handlers they might require to have the related target available. This is what t he fix provides. If you see a potential compat. issue just point me and i'll see what i can do.

The issues mentioned appear to not come from my PR. I triple checked the travis build logs and found no error being thrown by my code. If you see more, please just point me to. I'd love to fix it asap as i'd love to see this PR merged soon.

@itbra I don't see any issues at this point, just wanted to raise awareness of B/C in case you were going to extend the signature. I do think having the extended signature will be nicer to have.

The travis issues are indeed not yours, let's see when you update the PR what Travis thinks.

I'm afraid i don't know how to do that. Could you tell me please?

How did you create the PR in the first place? If you did it on your local machine in a branch of your own, you could simply update the files and push them again to your branch.

In fact i'm doing all my things online via the github website. I have almost no experience with git - especially with git via commandline and remote repos. Unfortunately i have no also no time to dig into this topic although i require a much better coding workflow including such things.
When i create a PR i go to the joomla-cms repo here on site, navigate to the file i'd like to modify, do my modification and save it, which automatically creates a new branch. That's it. Then, when i require to do some corrections i come back here and apply them.
I guess most of you readers will thinks this is pretty much unhandy and uncomfortable, but its the only way i can provide my help for now.

@itbra Nothing unhandy about your workflow if it works for you. It is only troublesome once you need to make changes to files that have been updated in the meantime. What I can do is create a new PR with your changes so it can be merged. Any further changes you want to do, just send them to me and I can update the new PR. Does that help?

If you do not want to update this PR with the extended signature I will make a new PR based on the changes here and we can get that tested. Otherwise you can send me the final changes and I can create the PR based on that.

@roland-d Your offer sounds good to me. Thanks for that! I'd enjoy if you'd to this. The PR is ready to go including the extended signature. After the first successful tests of the initial version arrived i did nothing other than extending the default deployed handlers' signatures adding them the second paramter. So you can take it as is for the new PR.

Closing this in favor of #5277.