Which code snippet correctly iterates over input values to replace invalid emails using MAIL_isValidEmail, with the valid ones preserved?

Which code snippet correctly iterates over input values to replace invalid emails using MAIL_isValidEmail, with the valid ones preserved?

• A. a!forEach( Items: ri!inputValues, expression: if(rule!MAIL_isValidEmail(email: fv!item), fv!item, "invalid") )
• B. a!forEach( Items: ri!inputValues, expression: if(rule!MAIL_isValidEmail(email: fv!item), "invalid", fv!item) )
• C. a!forEach( Items: ri!inputValues, expression: if(rule!MAIL_isValidEmail(email: fv!item) = true, fv!item, "invalid" ) )
• D. a!forEach( Items: ri!inputValues, expression: if(not(rule!MAIL_isValidEmail(email: fv!item)), fv!item, "invalid") )

Answer: (A)

The main idea is to apply a conditional that keeps valid emails and replaces invalid ones in a single pass. In this pattern, for each item, you check if the email is valid. If it is, you return the original value; if not, you substitute a placeholder like "invalid." Since the MAIL_isValidEmail function returns true for valid addresses, using an expression that returns the original value when the check is true and "invalid" otherwise directly achieves the goal. This approach is the cleanest because it mirrors the exact requirement: preserve valid emails and replace invalid ones. Inverting the result (as in swapping the outputs) would do the opposite. Using not(...) would also invert the mapping, producing the wrong result. While explicitly comparing to true is technically valid, it’s more verbose without adding clarity, so the straightforward conditional is preferred.

The main idea is to apply a conditional that keeps valid emails and replaces invalid ones in a single pass. In this pattern, for each item, you check if the email is valid. If it is, you return the original value; if not, you substitute a placeholder like "invalid." Since the MAIL_isValidEmail function returns true for valid addresses, using an expression that returns the original value when the check is true and "invalid" otherwise directly achieves the goal.

This approach is the cleanest because it mirrors the exact requirement: preserve valid emails and replace invalid ones. Inverting the result (as in swapping the outputs) would do the opposite. Using not(...) would also invert the mapping, producing the wrong result. While explicitly comparing to true is technically valid, it’s more verbose without adding clarity, so the straightforward conditional is preferred.