#14820: Use `TextField` instead of `PositiveIntegerField` in docs and examples
for
generic relations.
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Reporter: mrmachine | Owner:
Status: new | Milestone: 1.3
Component: Documentation | Version: SVN
Resolution: | Keywords: generic relation
genericforeignkey object_id type textfield sprintdec2010
Triage Stage: Accepted | Has patch: 1
Needs documentation: 0 | Needs tests: 0
Patch needs improvement: 0 |
-----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
Comment (by mrmachine):
Thanks for your feedback, PaulM.
As far as I can tell, using `PositiveIntegerField` is the same as
`IntegerField`, except for some additional form field validation when the
model is used in a `ModelForm` class. I'm happy to leave the examples as
using `PositiveIntegerField` if it really makes a practical difference
anywhere, but I'm not sure that it does.
There won't be any performance benefit, because it's still the same
integer field at the database backend. Only when people use the model in a
`ModelForm` class AND a database backend that doesn't support negative
integer primary keys (could you elaborate on this point?), they'll get
some additional validation on that form field to prevent them typing in
negative values. On the flip side, anyone using the model in a `ModelForm`
and a database backend that DOES support negative integer primary keys
will get some additional validation that they might not want.
At the end of the day, I think the form field validation for `object_id`
fields is a non-issue. I think that in most cases, people will not assign
values directly through model forms, and if they do they'll probably add
their own validation to ensure that the value references an actual object
in the target model (not just that it is positive). Especially if integer
fields on some database backends do and some don't support negative
integers, we should leave this validation out of it.
All I really care about though is adding a note that character and text
fields can be used for greater compatibility, for authors of generic apps
that won't know what types of objects people want to link their models
through generic relations. If changing the examples from `IntegerField`
back to `PositiveIntegerField` will get this change committed, I'm all for
it :)
--
Ticket URL: <http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/14820#comment:12>
Django <http://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 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-updates?hl=en.
