"Michele Cella" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Yep, the upper level Schema has priority over everything, your example > will work but is incoherent since you defined is_required = False and > not_empty = True. :D > Not that someone will actually do it anyway...
In fact, I would have agreed with you before -- I even think I stated that here. But when I separated both, and thought about form reuse, I saw the possibility of having the same form in two different places with different "requiredness" (I'm inventing a word here, I believe...) requisites. One example might be a user creation and user modification form. Both forms have "user_name", "display_name", "password" and "password_confirmation", but the passwords are required just for creating a new user while I might just want to fix a typo in the user display name later, without touching his password at all. It doesn't look like so incoherent now. > I'm seeing it everywhere (ok, where it belongs), anyway I'm relying on > not_empty (that doesn't work right without my patched FE) but on a > simulated validation. ;-) This might be the problem since I'm not using this patched version. :-) -- Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
