On 2/3/06, Michele Cella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Kevin Dangoor wrote:
> >
> > I think "options" should only exist for select fields. Otherwise, a
> > widget should use named parameters for the things that are of
> > interest/value to it.
> >
>
> The problem is passing them along the way from a form container to it's
> fields at display time, if we know that we can always rely upon "value"
> and "options" (as it is now) being passed by a form (or another
> compound widget) to it's fields we can just use them in a general way
> for passing dynamics things (in this case a SelectField is a special
> case that uses them for collecting possible choices).
>
> field.display(value=value.get(field.name), options.get(field.name,
> {}))"
Actually, here's what's in the form right now:
field.display(value=value.get(field.name),
**options.get(field.name, {}))
So *forms* still have options allowed for each field, but they get
passed as keyword arguments to each individual field's display method.
> That's what ended up on my last patch, r629 (maybe you didn't notice it
> :P).
>
> In this way you need to construct a options dictionary along with the
> value one that you pass to the template from your controller.
>
> Other solutions?
I think it's fine for forms and select widgets to retain "options" for
their particular uses. I don't think the other widgets can just use
plain keyword arguments though.
> > One thing that may be useful to do is allow you to put a list of
> > widget attributes that you'd like to make available to the template
> > and have that do the equivalent of:
> >
> > d[that_attribute] = d.get(that_attribute, getattr(self, that_attribute))
> >
> > That would make all of these types of things overrideable at display()
> > time. We could, if it's desirable, make that automatically call a
> > callable, but I'm a bit less certain on that one.
> >
>
> Yep, that could be useful, I've done something similar for the last
> patch on #490 (attributes support), but we should also take care of
> mutable (list/dict) instance attribute.
>
> A shortcut like the one you mentioned could be useful.
>
> >
> > Thanks for writing those tests! That was a big help! Always nice to
> > know that more of the functions are tested.
>
> I'm getting addicted to write tests, it's a nice feeling when they
> pass. :-)
Being test-infected is a good thing :)
Kevin
