Say you have list of options - new Boolean[] { null, True, False }.
so Null is a valid value. Why don't we allow choice renderer to assign
id value for null in this case?
I think when isNullValid() is true, we should allow choice renderer to
generate id even for null value (because it's valid). If null is _not_
valid, then we should either return "" or -1.
Does this sound sane?
-Matej
Johan Compagner wrote:
i think we can drop that NO_SELECTION_VALUE
and just return "" for it in AbstractSingleSelectChoice
so that it is consistent with what ChoiceRenderer does
Calling choicerender directly doesn't seem to be a good choice
because that is just a default implementation..
johan
On 10/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There is a inconsistency of how null is handled in
ChoiceRenderer#getIdValue and AbstractSingleSelectChoice#getModelValue.
ChoiceRenderer renders either "" as id, or index under which the null
value is in choices list.
AbstractSingleSelectChoice#getModelValue returns always -1 for null.
The outcome is that if RadioChoice has item with null value and the
model object is also null, the item is not pre-selected.
(because getValue() is compared to
getChoiceRenderer().getIdValue(choice, 0))
It is a bug, but I'm not sure what would be the best way to fix it.
Perhaps when AbstractSingleSelectChoice#isNullValid() is true the
getModelValue should call choiceRenderer.getIdValue(object, index) even
for null objects?
WDYT?
-Matej
