I thought that it was more appropriated to post it on the devlist
because it sounds like a bug but ok let's move it on the userlist, sorry
for the noise here. I'll be glad to hear your solution.
David
Marty Alchin a écrit :
> This should probably be asked on django-users, as it's more about how
> to use form_for_instance() than any internal development. And yes,
> that means I don't believe it's a bug, and I'll gladly explain more on
> django-users so more people can hear it.
>
> -Gul
>
> On 11/7/07, David Larlet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I'd spent a long time finding that bug but I want to be sure before
>> submitting it on Trac. If you pass a form argument to form_for_instance
>> like that:
>>
>> forms.form_for_instance(foo, form=FooForm)
>>
>> with an instance of foo which only contains a basic field (let's say a
>> CharField) and FooForm with a unique field too, the input rendered will
>> not be completed with the content of the foo instance. If you remove the
>> form argument:
>>
>> forms.form_for_instance(foo)
>>
>> the generated form contains the content of the foo instance.
>>
>> I'd tried to find the bug but this line (122 of newforms.models):
>>
>> return type(opts.object_name + 'InstanceForm', (form,),
>> {'base_fields': base_fields, '_model': model,
>> 'save': make_instance_save(instance, fields, 'changed')})
>>
>> give me headaches ;-). The only thing I can say is that base_fields
>> contains the initial data before this line but my returned form not.
>>
>> Did somebody use this argument and can confirm?
>>
>> Regards,
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
