Align required_without with the contract stated in the documentation

[jmfrees]

Fixes Or Enhances

Resolves #617

Fixes required_without so that it aligns with the stated contract and usage examples.

The docs valid usage to be:

// require the field if the Field1 is not present:
Usage: required_without=Field1

// require the field if the Field1 or Field2 is not present:
Usage: required_without=Field1 Field2

However, as show in this issue: #617, you can only use required_without on multiple fields like:

type Test struct {
    Field1 string `validator:required_without=Field2,required_without=Field3"
    ...
}

This PR aligns the behavior of the required_without validator such that you can also use it as shown in the example:

type Test struct {
    Field1 string `validator:required_without=Field2 Field3"
    ...
}

Make sure that you've checked the boxes below before you submit PR:

• Tests exist or have been written that cover this particular change.

Note: Sorry for the duplication of #1324. I was cleaning up my profile and deleted my fork before it could be merged.

@go-playground/validator-maintainers

[coveralls]

coverage: 73.655% (+0.002%) from 73.653%
when pulling 6605bf7 on jmfrees:jmfrees/fix-required_without
into c3fc72e on go-playground:master.

[nodivbyzero]

Thank you for your contribution!
Everything looks good to me.

[jmfrees]

Thank you for your contribution! Everything looks good to me.

Are there any other steps I need to take to help this fix be applied? If so, just let me know :) @nodivbyzero