#35284: PositiveIntegerField description is confusing
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Jon Ribbens | Owner: nobody
Type: | Status: new
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Documentation | Version: 5.0
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 1 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Jon Ribbens):
Hence why I agree that adding the words "or zero" were clearly an
improvement. Possibly I am not explaining myself well enough.
If there is no proposal in contemplation to change the behaviour at some
point in the future so it won't accept zero and hence people writing code
today should avoid using this field type if they wish to store zeroes, the
reference to "backward compatibility" is simply straight-up false.
If there is such a proposal then the wording should be changed instead to
indicate that if people want to store zeroes then they should not use this
field, they should use IntegerField with a customer validator or
something.
Maybe at the time of the previous ticket people were thinking that the
behaviour was going to be changed soon as an inevitable next step, but
that was twelve years ago so if they did think that they were clearly
mistaken.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/35284#comment:5>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018e1f755b89-53db10fb-b653-474e-9568-ed8fec8dbd22-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
