On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 4:59 PM, David Cramer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I haven't brought this up for quite a while, but ``to_field`` still > does not function properly (at least as of 1.1, I haven't noticed any > changes addressing it though). The issue is that anywhere you do a GET > lookup, it doesn't process the to_field properly:: > > # TODO: waiting on to_field fix > try: > opt = cls.objects.get(business=business.business_id, > key=key) > except cls.DoesNotExist: > opt = cls.objects.create(business=business, key=key, > value=value) > > That's supposed to illustrate the problem with to_field? It's a snippet of code lacking any context with a cryptic TODO comment. What is the model definition here (which would at least give a clue where to_field applies)? How would this code be different if this "to_field fix" were applied? This query: http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new&status=assigned&status=reopened&summary=~to_field&order=priority shows 4 open tickets with the "to_field" in their summary. Is the problem you are referring to one of these? > This seems to have been solved in the admin branch when newforms-admin > landed, but seems mostly ignored in the core field's. This issue has > also existed as far as I can remember, which is quite some time :) > > I've not been around as long as you so without reference to a ticket or something unfortunately I have no idea what problem you are talking about. I also don't know what you mean by it being fixed in admin but not in "core fields". Admin doesn't define fields, so huh? I can't really parse what you are trying to say here. > So, what do we need to get the ball rolling on this. I don't have much > time myself to commit, but if it's minor things such as writing some > tests that easily reproduce all errors we've found. We'll glady commit > those. Other than though my day is just filled, but I'd love to see > this get fixed. It's something that's advertised as a core feature, > has been for 3+years, and simply doesn't work. > > The tests you mention filed in a ticket, or attached to one of those tickets from above if indeed one of those is reporting the problem you are talking about, would be helpful. If none of those tickets reflect the problem you are talking about, then a complete description of the problem would be helpful; as it is I have no idea what problem you are referring to. > On a side note, something that I also believe is a bug, is that > ManyToManyRel.get_related_field() returns the primary key field no > matter what. I'm not sure if thats the intended functionality of that > or not, but to me it sounds like this should refer to the field in the > through model (even if that model is virtual) that it's pointing to. > A filed ticket describing the problem and how to recreate it would have a better chance of getting remembered and fixed than a side note in an email. Karen --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
