Hi,
to avoid big drop-down lists in admin interface I'm using
"raw_id_admin=True" inside ForeignKey(), so I can enter
object IDs manually. But what happens if my related object has
a _non-numeric_ custom primary key?
In my case I've a string as a custom primary key and I'd like
to enter this stri
On 10/3/05, Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to avoid big drop-down lists in admin interface I'm using
> "raw_id_admin=True" inside ForeignKey(), so I can enter
> object IDs manually. But what happens if my related object has
> a _non-numeric_ custom primary key?
> [...]
> Is it possible to h
Thanks for the quick answer!
Wouldn't it be nice (useful?) if just after inserting the pk value (in
case of "raw_id_admin=True" I mean) we could see aside the __repr__()
of the corresponding record? Just as a double check. Using manual
insertion of pk values is a good alternative when dealing wit
On 10/3/05, Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be nice (useful?) if just after inserting the pk value (in
> case of "raw_id_admin=True" I mean) we could see aside the __repr__()
> of the corresponding record? Just as a double check. Using manual
> insertion of pk values is a good al
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Oooh, that's a good idea. Django already displays the __repr__() of
> the corresponding record on the *change* page, but it'd be nice to do
> it automatically (via Ajax) right after the field is populated on the
> add page (or changed on the change page).
Yup... I notice
On 10/3/05, Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> to avoid big drop-down lists in admin interface I'm using
> "raw_id_admin=True" inside ForeignKey(), so I can enter
> object IDs manually. But what happens if my related object has
> a _non-numeric_ custom primary key?
I've fixed this bug in revis
I'm sorry but after updating (revision 786) this simple example
still has the problem I reported:
class Poll(meta.Model):
question = meta.CharField(maxlength=200,primary_key=True)
def __repr__(self):
return self.question
class META:
admin = meta.Admin()
pass
On 10/6/05, Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but after updating (revision 786) this simple example
> still has the problem I reported:
Hey Emanuele,
Update your Django code to revision 790, and give it another shot!
Adrian
--
Adrian Holovaty
holovaty.com | djangoproject.com | ch
YESS! It works perfectly!
Thank you very much, this solves an important problem in my
application.
Emanuele
On 10/6/05, Emanuele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> YESS! It works perfectly!
>
> Thank you very much, this solves an important problem in my
> application.
Excellent! Thank *you* for using Django.
:-)
Adrian
--
Adrian Holovaty
holovaty.com | djangoproject.com | chicagocrime.org
10 matches
Mail list logo