That would just be short_name = "something", what you are doing is
creating an object, however you aren't saving it to the database, you
are just using it to pre-populate info to a model form.
On Jan 28, 4:19 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hello that's what I wanted but it
Hello that's what I wanted but it doesn't work
('prepopulate_short_name' is an invalid keyword argument for this
function)
I have
player_create_name = request.GET.get('name')
tplayer = Player(prepopulate_short_name=player_create_name)
playerForm = CreatePlayerForm(instance=tplayer)
models:
class
If I get what you are asking correctly, you are trying to pre-populate
some fields in a form without printing out the validation errors that
occur from not having all the fields populated?
If so this should help:
# create object instance with pre-populated data
obj_instance = Object(prepoulate_f
Hello,
I have a view with searches for a given record (using a text field).
If the object does not exist show a error and a link: Create
On the create view if GET.get('val') then I put that data in the form.
I want this just to make it simple for a user to enter a new object if
it does not exist
> This data needs to be saved in Options. A record for each product
> selected with the name and price in it. This is because the product
> name can change in the future and the price can change. So this should
> be stored in Options.
>
> My problem is that I don't know yet how to do this.
>
> Ca
Ok I worked myself a bit in trouble.
Don't know yet how to do this with newforms:
Let me explain and dumb down my problem to make things easy:
two models:
model 1: Products
I got "products" that have each a name and a price
Model 2: Options
Option has a foreingkey pointing to products but also a
On 11/4/07, crybaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> That seems to be a silly question now. I have another related
> question regarding type of "self.cleaned_data['guess_the_number']",
> string or integer or float?
In general it depends on the type of field. In this case it's a RegExField,
so
That seems to be a silly question now. I have another related
question regarding type of "self.cleaned_data['guess_the_number']",
string or integer or float?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Djang
>
> def clean_guess_the_number(self):
> if self.max_number > self.cleaned_data['guess_the_number']:
Change that to:
if self.max_number < self.cleaned_data['guess_the_number']:
> raise forms.ValidationError('Your Number have to be lower
> or equal to Max Number.')
>
On 11/3/07, crybaby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Validation checks the number entered by the user is between the range
> and this check is done in "def clean_guess_the_number". This is not
> working.
>
> Seems like "def clean_guess_the_number(self)" never executed when you
> post the data and
Validation checks the number entered by the user is between the range
and this check is done in "def clean_guess_the_number". This is not
working.
Seems like "def clean_guess_the_number(self)" never executed when you
post the data and when form.is_valid() called.
class GuessForm(forms.Form):
I have an app that uses a roll-my-own role-based access system to
restrict access to various model instances. Essentially what happens
is that there is a role or roles assigned to users that allow them to
either view or edit various asset types based on the owning
organization. Many of the asset
On 31.05.2007., at 04:30, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 08:31 -0700, ringemup wrote:
> [...]
>>> So a "uniqueness" constraint on your model is not something that the
>>> form framework is really in a position to check. Instead, what
>>> should
>>> happen is you construct the
> Since full model-aware validation doesn't exist yet, example code would
> be premature. :-)
Ah, sorry, I thought you were saying that models have an existing
validate() method that could be called on an object constructed by a
form.
On May 30, 3:18 pm, "Alfonso Ali" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 08:31 -0700, ringemup wrote:
[...]
> > So a "uniqueness" constraint on your model is not something that the
> > form framework is really in a position to check. Instead, what should
> > happen is you construct the model object and then call
> > object.validate(), which return
My solution is to use the base class parameter of form_for_[model|instance]
function, for example:
class SomeTest(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(maxlength=50)
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
class Meta:
unique_together = (('user', 'name'),)
class SomeTestBaseForm(forms.Base
ringemup wrote:
>
> Do you then have to figure out which errors apply to which Form
> fields, and sort them out and assign them? I haven't seen any sample
> code doing anything of this sort, so I'd be very interested to see how
> it works.
>
I was recently in the same situation and did somethi
> The short answer to your problem is probably to not use form_for_model()
> if you want this sort of support. Instead write your own Form sub-class
> and write a clean() method for it. The form_for_model() function is just
> an aid after all; it shouldn't be the only thing you ever consider
> us
Am Dienstag, 29. Mai 2007 21:19 schrieb ringemup:
> Hello --
>
> I'm using a basic form_for_model() form object for a model that has a
> unique=True constraint on a field other than the primary key.
>
> When validating submitted data, is there a reason the form check that
> that constraint hasn't
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 12:19 -0700, ringemup wrote:
> Hello --
>
> I'm using a basic form_for_model() form object for a model that has a
> unique=True constraint on a field other than the primary key.
>
> When validating submitted data, is there a reason the form check that
> that constraint hasn
Hello --
I'm using a basic form_for_model() form object for a model that has a
unique=True constraint on a field other than the primary key.
When validating submitted data, is there a reason the form check that
that constraint hasn't been violated and throw a validation error?
I'd like to be abl
What is the different between newforms, forms.CharField(max_length =
30, min_length = 5, error_message ='Must be at least 5 char length')
and using clean method raise forms.ValidationError ('Display some
error message')
Is former for static error message and later for Dynamic Error Message?
--~
The clean_XXX methods documented in the regression tests mentioned
above did it for me. I think the new api is much cleaner(!) than the
old.
The only thing is that I think the clean_XXX should be passed the
cleaned value so far since you most likely will be doing:
def clean_XXX(self):
value =
I had this same dilemma also. I was trying to create my own custom
login view, but the current built-in login view still uses the
oldforms, while I'm in the process of converting to newforms. The
AuthenticationForm in Django has a hasCookiesEnabled() method that
requires to have access to the req
Yes, you should implement your own field classes with custom
validation. A Field *is* a validator.
Yes, I understand the idea.
I love the new django.newforms lib, but I think that an extra
'validator_list' parameter at least in CharField is more convenient
and easy to implement(less code).
G
Thank you both. Django rocks by the way!
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django
users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send
serbaut wrote:
Respect! Dont have time to wait though... :D
Can you please consider passing the cleaned value to the
(undocumented?) clean_%s method in Form.full_clean()?
-value = getattr(self, 'clean_%s' % name)()
+value = getattr(self, 'clean_%s' % nam
Respect! Dont have time to wait though... :D
Can you please consider passing the cleaned value to the
(undocumented?) clean_%s method in Form.full_clean()?
-value = getattr(self, 'clean_%s' % name)()
+value = getattr(self, 'clean_%s' % name)(value)
Joaki
On 1/17/07, serbaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> def my_view(request):
> f = MyForm({'foo': request.POST['foo'], 'bar': request.user.username})
>
> The form library itself knows nothing about request objects.
But my Field doesnt know about its' form so how does this help my
Field.cl
def my_view(request):
f = MyForm({'foo': request.POST['foo'], 'bar': request.user.username})
The form library itself knows nothing about request objects.
But my Field doesnt know about its' form so how does this help my
Field.clean(self, value) validator?
Joakim
--~--~-
On 1/17/07, serbaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Say for example that I need to check permissions for request.user in
clean?
def clean(self, value):
if request.user.has_some_property() and value > 100:
raise forms.ValidationError, 'You are not allowed to go that high,
please enter a value
Creating field classes for validation makes sense but what if I need to
validate in a request context?
Say for example that I need to check permissions for request.user in
clean?
def clean(self, value):
if request.user.has_some_property() and value > 100:
raise forms.ValidationError, 'You
On 12/29/06, mojo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is it possible to set list of validators for field? (looking through the
code my guess is no).
Should I implement my own field classes with custom validation (overloading
clean()) or what?
Yes, you should implement your own field classes with custom
my bad, of course, the patch should be:
Index: fields.py
===
--- fields.py (revision 4256)
+++ fields.py (working copy)
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
# Tracks each time a Field instance is created. Used to retain
order.
creation_cou
I tried to implement what I want, please review (this example works for
me):
patch:
Index: fields.py
===
--- fields.py (revision 4253)
+++ fields.py (working copy)
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@
# Tracks each time a Field instance is cre
Hi,
Is it possible to set list of validators for field? (looking through the
code my guess is no).
Should I implement my own field classes with custom validation (overloading
clean()) or what?
I think that validator_list argument in oldforms was quite convenient.
Thanks.
--~--~-~--~-
36 matches
Mail list logo
