Re: [web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2012-02-10 Thread Richard Vézina
I just want to report here about this thread that it seems that computed field has to be set to readable and writable = True to make the computed field to be effectively computed on form submit. Computed field won't appears in form but will be computed. If not readable and writable True (I didn't t

[web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2012-01-13 Thread Alan Etkin
I think I was able to define readable auto computeable fields (fields were able to re-compute themselves on insert or update, at least with Sqlite) in the past. This is no longer supported (of course, if former versions did)? On 17 nov 2011, 11:25, David Manns wrote: > I have finally figured out

Re: [web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2011-12-19 Thread Richard Vézina
To me it makes no sens that readable and/or writable = False prevent compute to get all the field present in the table definition... I may completely not understand what writable and readable are for... I know that depend of how they are used (both false) the field will not be present at all into

[web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2011-11-17 Thread David Manns
I have finally figured out the cause of my problem, though not why there was inconsistency in behavior with some computed fields updating and others not.  I was putting writable=false and readable=false on the computed fields in my model.  I'm not sure why I thought this was correct usage; it makes

[web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2011-11-16 Thread Massimo Di Pierro
I believe this is a bug and it has already been fixed in trunk and nightly build. can you confirm? On Nov 16, 8:23 pm, Anthony wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:39:54 PM UTC-5, David Manns wrote: > > > This is all very alarming in a framework which boasts of "always > > maintaining backw

[web2py] Re: Computed Fields broken by 1.99.2

2011-11-16 Thread Anthony
On Wednesday, November 16, 2011 8:39:54 PM UTC-5, David Manns wrote: > > This is all very alarming in a framework which boasts of "always > maintaining backward compatibility" - quote taken from the preface of > "the book". The intention was certainly not to break backward compatibility. If so