Realizing my original statement I was regarding this thread, in this thread, it's obvious that this has gone completely off track. I might have to take back everything I thought about this being useful.
If you want to address a SPECIFIC concern, it makes sense to do that under its own topic. Think of this mailing list like a forum, as, after all, many of us browse it just like one. When a "thread" happens to have 12 different topics it loses its value fast. On Apr 19, 3:44 pm, Richard Laager <rlaa...@wiktel.com> wrote: > In the end, *my* requirement is that I have *some place* to put > validation code that 1) can see the whole model instance, 2) will be run > from the admin interface, and 3) will return nice validation failures to > the user (not throw exceptions that will give the user a 500 error and > send me an email). > > A) Is this an unreasonable pony? If so, why? > B) If not, how can I implement this such that it will get accepted? > > I'd like to have it in for 1.2 if possible, as the model validation > interfaces are new. Once released, there will be more > backwards-compatibility guarantees to maintain. > > > > > > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 10:53 -0500, James Bennett wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:16 AM, Richard Laager <rlaa...@wiktel.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2010-04-19 at 07:55 -0700, orokusaki wrote: > > >> With all respect, you still haven't addressed my main concern: You > > >> told me that it was because of backward compatibility that this simple > > >> change couldn't be put in the trunk. It is backward compatible. If I'm > > >> wrong, it would suffice to have a simple explanation of what it > > >> breaks. > > > > I'd like to second this question. orokusaki suggested a couple of things > > > in ticket #13100, but I'm seconding specifically this comment: > > >http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13100#comment:8 > > > The difference between how ModelForm works and how Model works is > > that, if you're overriding clean() on a ModelForm subclass, you don't > > automatically get uniqueness validation -- you have to call up to the > > parent clean(), or manually apply the uniqueness validation in your > > own clean(). > > Thank you for this explanation. > > orokusaki noted in ticket #13100: > "The only difference between its implementation and > ModelForm?._post_clean() is the internal check it makes before running > validate_unique()." > > So is the actual issue here that naively calling Model.full_clean() will > always run Model.validate_unique(), when the existing > ModelForm._post_clean() code only calls Model.validate_unique() when > self._validate_unique? > > If so, Model.full_clean() is new in 1.2. So, could we just add a kwarg > like this (or similar)? > def full_clean(self, exclude=None, validate_unique=True) > > Then, it would be modified to only call Model.validate_unique if the > validate_unique argument was True. > > Then, you could call Model.full_clean() from ModelForm._post_clean(), > passing self._validate_unique and preserve the same behavior. > > Alternatively, could we add another function to Model that allows for > whole-model validation but does not call Model.validate_unique() and > then call that from ModelForm._post_clean() instead of calling > Model.full_clean()? Of course, Model.full_clean() would have to call > this new validation function as well. > > Richard > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
