On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:45 AM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > ok, in trunk.
Wow, don't you sleep? =) As I am using and learning web2py, I've been reading its source-code to understand the "magic" under the hood and to make a better use of it. I am not confident yet to write my own patches, but I hope I can start to contribute with something soon. Fabiano. On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:45 AM, mdipierro <[email protected]> wrote: > ok, in trunk. > > On Jan 3, 8:34 pm, Fabiano <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ok. By the way, If I may suggest, it would be a nice feature, and backward >> compatible. As the id is an implied column and you must specify it explicit >> when making references, I think it it would be even more consistent to >> specify a table, the id would be implicit in both cases. >> >> Regards, >> >> On Monday, January 3, 2011 11:23:46 PM UTC-2, mdipierro wrote: >> >> > The error is in the example. IS_IN_DB *never* accepted a table as >> > second argument. >> > Sorry for the confusion. Will fix the example. >> >> > Massimo >> >> > On Jan 3, 6:25 pm, Fabiano - deStilaDo <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > Hi, >> >> > > from validators.py: >> >> > > 342 class IS_IN_DB(Validator): >> > > 343 """ >> > > 344 example:: >> > > 345 >> > > 346 INPUT(_type='text', _name='name', >> > > 347 requires=IS_IN_DB(db, db.table, zero='')) >> > > 348 >> > > 349 used for reference fields, rendered as a dropbox >> > > 350 """ >> >> > > But I can't use the documented syntax: IS_IN_DB(db, db.table). I had >> > > to use explicit db.table.id as argument. >> >> > > It looks like the current code (1.91.6) does not accept a table as >> > > argument. Apparently, it cannot figure out that when you specify a >> > > table instead of a field it should use the table's id field. It relies >> > > on the field representation as string to extract the field name, >> > > splitting it by dots, as shows line 371 from the class' constructor: >> >> > > 370 self.field = field >> > > 371 (ktable, kfield) = str(self.field).split('.') >> >> > > Wouldn't be better to test the argument with something like isinstance() >> > first? >> >> > > Sorry if I misunderstood something, but I think that if this is not a >> > > bug, then the documentation should be updated. >> >> > > I also didn't check the code for IS_NOT_IN_DB(), but I guess this >> > > class may have the same issue. >> >> > > Regards, >> >> > > Fabiano. >> >>
