I'm using a view that combines 2 forms (which were split in order to facilitate reuse and to separate concerns). The model instance I am sending to both is the same, so when one form sets the new values on the instance, the other can see them. The problem is that when the first form is saved, the changes made through the second form are also committed. Functionally, this is not a problem, but I also generate some historical records and expect to have 2 different historical records generated after these modifications - or in any case, I expect the fields to be grouped based on this separation. (Background: the records are generated by a *post_save* signal receiver).
My expectation was that updating an instance via a form will only update the set of fields specified in *ModelForm.Meta.fields*, not all the fields of the instance. It would also make a lot more sense in case the model has TextFields not included in the form being saved. I know I could just call *super().save(commit=False)* and then just save the instance using the update_fields parameter, but I think this functionality should come out of the box. My question is: Are there any considerations that I'm not aware of to prevent saving the instance with the *update_fields* set to *ModelForm.Meta.fields* in the base implementation of *ModelForm*? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/8a5dcfee-a8b6-4821-9107-e16485086a7b%40googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
