Kevin Dangoor wrote: > On 3/31/06, Alberto Valverde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 31/03/2006, at 11:55, Michele Cella wrote: > > > ATM I can see only two solutions: > > > > > > 1) Removing the ignore_key_missing parameter from our Schema and tweak > > > thing so that this will work, since we don't let the Schema accept > > > missing fields the validation will be done by the widget validator and > > > if not_empty=True you will receive an error otherwise all should work > > > well. > > > > +1 I personally never use disabled_fields and I'd like the extra > > sanitizing that will take place if missing keys are not ignored. > > As long as this doesn't completely break disabled fields. JP Farias > was the one who originally proposed (and submitted a patch for) > disabled fields. I've cc'ed him in case he's not reading this list. > > It seems like this should be fine, because you wouldn't really disable > a required field. >
I'm not even sure we need to remove ignore_key_missing since I've noticed (with some quick tests) that without this the validator can't say anything and it's totally by passed. What we need is probably a small additional logic in ForEach, I'm going to look at it when I get home... Ciao Michele --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" 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/turbogears-trunk -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
