On Thursday 19 January 2006 04:05, Shaun Cutts wrote:
> What is happening is that "min" (and max) are ValidatedProperties of
> Orderable. When a "missing_value" is supplied, min = None (by default)
> is checked and fails validation.
> One solution is to change "None" into missing_value in the Orderable
> __init__. More exhaustively, min, max, and default should have defaults
> as "__missing_value_marker" in the Orderable __init__ (using the trick
> in Field.__init__), which would then be converted to the actual
> missing_value, if specified, or None, if not.
Yes, this sounds like the right way to do it.
> (But I don't know if constraints should (always?) apply to each other.
> For instance, if "min" were actually defined as the largest value
> smaller than the range, it wouldn't validate against itself.)
There should definitely be a check there; you are right.
It would be great, if you could check in your suggestions into the repository
or at least make an issue entry!
CBU Physics & Chemistry (B.S.) / Tufts Physics (Ph.D. student)
Web2k - Web Software Design, Development and Training
Zope3-dev mailing list