On 2011/05/12 4:05 AM, Cédric Krier wrote: > On 12/05/11 10:30 +0200, Nicolas Évrard wrote: >> * Cédric Krier [2011-05-12 10:13 +0200]: >>> On 12/05/11 09:45 +0200, Paul J Stevens wrote: >>>> This makes me wonder if perhaps the whole required state machinery needs >>>> to be able to allow zero values on numeric fields to satisfy the >>>> requirement. I'm well aware of where this comes from: in python numeric >>>> values of zero evaluate to False. However, is a business context an >>>> explicit zero-amount is *not* the same as an unspecified amount, or in >>>> other words: 0 is not False, only False is False. >>> Have you ideas about how we could be sure to not have zero-amount per error? >> You can have a sql constraint and a boolean field. > Having a checkbox if checked it allow zero amount as unit price. > Like that the user should explicitly says that he want a zero amount price. > This sounds like an ideal solution, actually - if we were just able to explicitly set unit_price_required (or whatever) to False for donated items, seems like we'd be set!
Brian Dunnette Free Geek Twin Cities -- [email protected] mailing list
<<attachment: bdunnette.vcf>>
