In fact I'm using list:string because architechture, I'm doing a lot of manual parsing, but Is it a problem? Coould it be implemented? or the best way is to use list:reference?
On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:49 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wednesday, August 3, 2011 1:35:17 PM UTC-4, Ialejandro wrote: >> >> >> Field('user_proj','string',**requires=IS_IN_DB(db,db.**project.id<http://db.project.id> >> ,"%(name)s",**multiple=True)), >> >> Field('owner_proj','string',**requires=IS_IN_DB(db,db.**project.id<http://db.project.id>,"%(name)s", >> multiple=True)), >> >> Field('reader_proj','string',**requires=IS_IN_DB(db,db.**project.id<http://db.project.id> >> ,"%(name)s",**multiple=True)), > > > I'm not sure if this is the only problem, but shouldn't the above three > fields be of type 'list:reference' rather than 'string' (given that they are > using the IS_IN_DB validator with multiple=True)? > > Anthony >
