Re: CITextField base class

I agree with Aymeric that the framework should contain any boilerplate rather than force projects to implement it themselves. On 9 February 2017 at 13:43, Aymeric Augustin < aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I’m not a fan of having every project that needs case-insensitive

Re: CITextField base class

Hello, I’m not a fan of having every project that needs case-insensitive fields declare: class CICharField(CIText, CharField): pass class CITextField(CIText, TextField): pass class CIEmailField(CIText, EmailField): pass Could Django take care of providing these classes? (And

Re: CITextField base class

That looks good to me. On Thursday, February 9, 2017 at 4:58:16 AM UTC-5, Mads Jensen wrote: > > I had the use case for shorter text strings in mind when I did the PR. > > > https://github.com/atombrella/django/commit/ae8fe50f34329cbc969c5ac5bd368efd5b42b177 > > <- would this be a better

Re: CITextField base class

I had the use case for shorter text strings in mind when I did the PR. https://github.com/atombrella/django/commit/ae8fe50f34329cbc969c5ac5bd368efd5b42b177 <- would this be a better approach? On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 6:09:26 PM UTC+1, Tim Graham wrote: > > I thought the mixin idea was

Re: CITextField base class

I thought the mixin idea was good but everyone else (including Aymeric) reviewed the pull request and ignored your comment about that so I assumed no one else saw its merits. Considering a CITextField that uses CharField still has some usefulness as you mentioned, I'm in favor of CITextField

Re: CITextField base class

> Does it make sense to add a CICharField for these cases or you can just override the form/admin. In a past Django developers discussion, Aymeric suggested building this functionality with a mixin so the citext type could apply to multiple DB fields which would then affect how the form field is

Re: CITextField base class

Does it make sense to add a CICharField for these cases or you can just override the form/admin. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Jon Dufresne wrote: > I believe this will also change the default form widget from type="text"> to . Is that also desired? IME, I most often

Re: CITextField base class

I believe this will also change the default form widget from to . Is that also desired? IME, I most often use citext with short text inputs, such as email. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 7:11 AM, Tim Graham wrote: > Since that's a release blocker for a feature that hasn't been

Re: CITextField base class

Thanks Tim. I re-opened the ticket. On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Tim Graham wrote: > Since that's a release blocker for a feature that hasn't been released > yet, it's fine to reference/reopen the original ticket rather than create a > new one. I've created a PR,

Re: CITextField base class

Since that's a release blocker for a feature that hasn't been released yet, it's fine to reference/reopen the original ticket rather than create a new one. I've created a PR, https://github.com/django/django/pull/8034. On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 7:40:02 AM UTC-5, Adam Johnson wrote: > >

Re: CITextField base class

Pretty sure this is a new ticket since it's effectively a bug report On 8 February 2017 at 11:00, Mads Jensen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:32:22 AM UTC+1, Adam Johnson wrote: >> >> Sounds legit, make a ticket >> > > Shouldn't

Re: CITextField base class

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 12:00:23 PM UTC+1, Mads Jensen wrote: > > Shouldn't https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/26610 just be reopened? > Nope, since that ticket indeed got fixed. A bug in something that got committed usually also means new ticket. -- You received this message

Re: CITextField base class

On Wednesday, February 8, 2017 at 11:32:22 AM UTC+1, Adam Johnson wrote: > > Sounds legit, make a ticket > Shouldn't https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/26610 just be reopened? > On 8 February 2017 at 00:37, Sean Brant > wrote: > >> I noticed the new postgres

Re: CITextField base class

Sounds legit, make a ticket On 8 February 2017 at 00:37, Sean Brant wrote: > I noticed the new postgres citext[1] field is a subclass of CharField. > Wouldn't it be more correct to subclass TextField? Subclassing CharField > means we need to add a max_length which is

CITextField base class

I noticed the new postgres citext[1] field is a subclass of CharField. Wouldn't it be more correct to subclass TextField? Subclassing CharField means we need to add a max_length which is ignored in the db. [1]