On Jun 27, 2007, at 2:49 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
On 2007-06-26 22:41:25 +0200, Gary Poster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
On Jun 23, 2007, at 6:38 AM, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
Log message for revision 76975:
FileWidget tries to be smarter about not deleting the
currently stored content when the user did not upload a new file.
...
Modified: zope.app.form/trunk/src/zope/app/form/browser/
textwidgets.py
===================================================================
--- zope.app.form/trunk/src/zope/app/form/browser/textwidgets.py
2007-06-23 10:25:23 UTC (rev 76974)
+++ zope.app.form/trunk/src/zope/app/form/browser/textwidgets.py
2007-06-23 10:38:37 UTC (rev 76975)
@@ -475,6 +475,11 @@
def _toFieldValue(self, input):
if input is None or input == '':
+ # There was no input. With File-Upload this usually
means that the
+ # value should *not* change. Let's try to get the
old value.
+ content = self.context.context
+ if self.context.interface.providedBy(content):
+ return self.context.get(content)
return self.context.missing_value
try:
seek = input.seek
Hey. This has a couple of bugs, IMO. It might also be a
misfeature, but I'm less sure about that.
First, "return self.context.get(content)" assumes that this
widget will be used on an edit form (not true for us).
Second, "if self.context.interface.providedBy(content):" assumes
that the schema field is part of an interface (not true for us).
Hum. From that I make that there are not enough tests. :/
Heh, yeah.
I suspect z3c.form is the way forward for us eventually. One never
has enough tests, and 100% line coverage is only one way to count
things, but the z3c.form story seems improved in many ways,
importantly including its testing story.
I figure that the .interface attribute doesn't seem to be part of
any interface anyway. So in fact this is not a nice thing to do.
:-)
Neither of these are valid assumptions generally for a form field,
IMO.
I'm also not sure about the semantics. Shouldn't this be handled
more at the form level? I can see why you want to do this here,
but it seems pretty gray, and I'm not sure how to solve the bugs
in a sane and reliable way.
No, thinking about it it's not the right way I did it. Basically I
wasn't aware about the different conexts. In general I know that,
but sometimes you're just blind :)
I relate.
I agree that this is a tricky problem, and it would be nice to
solve it, but your solution is not correct for a generic form
widget. The only suggestion I have ATM is to revert this,
unfortunately, but I welcome other approaches that solve the
issues I raised.
Solving it on form level is of course possible but not really the
thing you want to think about.
Right, I definitely understood your goal.
I suspect there should be some 'i have not changed' marker value.
There is some strange thing in zope.formlib.form.applyChanges
preventing updates of the value already:
def applyChanges(context, form_fields, data, adapters=None):
...
for form_field in form_fields:
...
name = form_field.__name__
newvalue = data.get(name, form_field) # using form_field as
marker
if (newvalue is not form_field) and (field.get(adapter) !=
newvalue):
changed = True
field.set(adapter, newvalue)
return changed
newvalue is not formfield? To me this does not make much sense. Why
would I return self.context to indicate the value has not changed?
As the comment says, looks like form_field is being used as a
marker--.get should (hopefully) never return form_field, which is
precisely the point: that way, if get returns form_field, that means
that there is not a new value of any sort.
Anyway, to the original problem. As I said, I don't know what to do
except suggest that you revert here. Are you willing and able?
Gary
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
