On Sep 7, 10:02 am, Tai Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In your hypothetical, how would you handle boolean fields with a
> checkbox widget? When they are unticked, they are not included in the
> QueryDict.
You are quite right. That's a very good reason.
Perhaps that HTML should consider a
In your hypothetical, how would you handle boolean fields with a
checkbox widget? When they are unticked, they are not included in the
QueryDict. It could get confusing if we start special casing fields
like these in order to support "no data" as a different case to "empty
data", just to avoid
On Sep 6, 9:43 pm, "James Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Denis Frère <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why LinkForm(request.POST, instance=link) doesn't behaves like
> > link.update(request.POST) ?
>
> it doesn't behave that way because it'd make no sense to
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 8:40 AM, Denis Frère <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why LinkForm(request.POST, instance=link) doesn't behaves like
> link.update(request.POST) ?
> Is it a will or an "omission" ?
it doesn't behave that way because it'd make no sense to behave that
way; if there's a field in
When editing an object, I find it strange that untouched values are
set to blank.
Let's say I have a link object with a date_created field. When I use a
default LinkForm to edit my links, if I don't exclude the date_created
field, that field is set to blank if I don't use that field in my
