I do have the type set and I've been reading WICKET-606 and I'm using
1.3.2and there is no converter and convertInput is not called.
I've now written some code to show that there is a difference.
form.add( new TextField( "text1", new PropertyModel( this, "text1" ) ) );
form.add( new TextField( "text2", new PropertyModel( this, "text2" )
).setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( true ) );
form.add( new TextField( "text3", new PropertyModel( this, "text3" )
).setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( false ) );
form.add( new TextField( "text4", new PropertyModel( this, "text4" ),
String.class ) );
form.add( new TextField( "text5", new PropertyModel( this, "text5" ),
String.class ).setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( true ) );
form.add( new TextField( "text6", new PropertyModel( this, "text6" ),
String.class ).setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( false ) );
produces this
Setting text1 to [null]
Setting text2 to [null]
Setting text3 to []
Setting text4 to []
Setting text5 to []
Setting text6 to []
So,
- text1 and text2 are the same because
setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull is true by default
- text3 does what would be expected
- text4 I'm not sure about
- text5 and text6 are anomalous as either one or the other should
produce a null
I guess the main problem is that I'm not sure what is supposed to happen. I
though that having set the type to String meant that the normal string
processing took place and setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull did the job.
As it is, I've learned more about how things work and I can overcome my
problem. However, if anyone wants me to continue with this I would be happy
to do so.
Eric.
On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Are you sure you dont have the type set?
> Is a converter used or is convertInput called?
>
> On 3/28/08, Eric Rotick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm, it's not working for me.
> >
> > There's one other thing I spotted. The docs say that a TextField
> defaults to
> > String.class even if it cannot work out the class from the model. My
> model
> > is not one that allows for reflection to determine the class and
> initially
> > all input to the TextField was being set as null even when there was
> some.
> > As soon as I added the parameter to set the class to String it started
> > saving strings correctly.
> >
> > I will have a look at the code to see if there's anything obvious.
> >
> > Eric.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > TexField.setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( true ) worked fine for me
> > > in a quickstart...
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Eric Rotick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > I've just been reading the section on Forms and validation in Wicket
> in
> > > > Action and have tried
> > > >
> > > > AbstractValidator av = new AbstractValidator( ) {
> > > > protected void onValidate( IValidatable validatable ) {
> > > > // No nothing
> > > > }
> > > > public boolean validateOnNullValue( ) {
> > > > return true;
> > > > }
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > adding one of these to the TextField but still an empty string gets
> > > > returned.
> > > >
> > > > All I want to do is get a null string rather than an empty string
> from
> > > a
> > > > TextField. Has nobody had this use case?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Eric Rotick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I've just realised that the database is getting filled with
> columns
> > > of
> > > > > empty strings which then don't cause the 'not null' test to trip.
> > > > >
> > > > > The culprit is the TextField returning an empty string rather
> than a
> > > null.
> > > > > I can see there are some special considerations for returning a
> null
> > > and I
> > > > > want to understand how they will effect me. However, I've tried
> > > > >
> > > > > TexField.setConvertEmptyInputStringToNull( true )
> > > > >
> > > > > with no effect and using
> > > > >
> > > > > new TextField( id ) {
> > > > > public boolean isInputNullable() {
> > > > > regturn true;
> > > > > }
> > > > > };
> > > > >
> > > > > also with no effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm assuming I'm not the first person to see this effect and I
> guess
> > > it's
> > > > > lack of understanding rather than some implicit behaviour but I
> can't
> > > find
> > > > > anything guiding on the subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > In this case, the string has no special formatting, it just needs
> to
> > > be
> > > > > stored verbatim in the database but the application logic in the
> > > backend
> > > > > uses an empty string in a different way than a null string and,
> yes,
> > > maybe
> > > > > the database should also have a column check but it doesn't at
> > > present.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any pointers?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
