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 django-developers@googlegroups.com
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
