You are correct about looping through the form scope. I did realise that is the problem but I think I have misunderstood what refresh-update="true" does. I guess I was hoping that it would force a check for a value, and sincce that doesn't exist it would then use the nullable value. It's a pity as it would b a neat way of handling it. It would probably have other ramifications though, so I guess it's like that by design.
Thanks for clearing up what the property options do. On May 1, 3:34 pm, Bob Silverberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you look at my second point? I think that's probably where you're > getting caught. I only mentioned the first point (about nullable) because > it was an obvious logic problem. > > To try to be clearer about the second point, you need to take a look at the > logic that is being used to populate your object from that form data. My > guess is that you're looking at what was submitted by the user (i.e., the > form scope) and then trying to find matching setters and calling them. The > problem with checkboxes is that nothing is passed in the form scope when > they are left unchecked, so if my assumption above is correct, your code > isn't finding the isactive field in the form scope, and therefore is not > updating your object. Therefore if your object has a 1 in the isactive > field prior, there will still be a 1 because the getter is never being > called. > > Does that make sense? > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 9:15 AM, Devon Burriss <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > I did try it with nullable="true" and didn't get any loving from that. > > I was hoping that refresh-update="true" would force a new value, even > > if the checkbox is uncheck (ie isactive is null), and then the > > nullvalue="0" would come into effect. > > Am I missing something or could this be a bug? > > > On May 1, 2:31 pm, Bob Silverberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A couple of things: > > > > 1. You've specified nullable="false", as well as nullvalue="0". I > > believe > > > that the nullable="false" will make Transfer ignore the nullvalue="0", so > > > either you need to change nullable to "true", or forget about the > > nullvalue > > > as it isn't going to do anything. > > > > 2. Lovely checkboxes in html forms ;-) As we all know, if a checkbox is > > > left unchecked, no value is passed through in the form scope, so I'm > > > guessing that the code that you use to populate your object isn't taking > > > that into account. The current value (which you said is 1) is probably > > > being left unchanged when the checkbox is left unchecked. > > > > Bob > > > > On Fri, May 1, 2009 at 5:15 AM, Devon Burriss <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to handle the occurrence of a null value purely in the > > > > config xml? I hope so as currently I have a save method in an extended > > > > cfc which populates the transfer object and does the save without me > > > > having to write any extra code, except for validation. > > > > > I was sure something like this would force a 0 in the column if the > > > > 'isactive' field/property/column is blank > > > > > <property name="isactive" type="numeric" nullable="false" > > > > nullvalue="0" refresh-update="true"/> > > > > > but I guess I am missing something, since no matter what I do it won't > > > > update from 1 to 0 when i edit the record and leave the checkbox blank > > > > for the edit. > > > > -- > > > Bob Silverbergwww.silverwareconsulting.com > > -- > Bob Silverbergwww.silverwareconsulting.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Before posting questions to the group please read: http://groups.google.com/group/transfer-dev/web/how-to-ask-support-questions-on-transfer You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "transfer-dev" 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/transfer-dev?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
