Hi Carl,
On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 5:33 AM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> On 06/27/2014 06:41 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Curtis Maloney
> > mailto:cur...@acommoncreative.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Am I reading this right as "people used to commonly solve this
> >
On 06/27/2014 06:41 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Curtis Maloney
> mailto:cur...@acommoncreative.com>> wrote:
>
> Am I reading this right as "people used to commonly solve this
> problem by using an internal API, but now we have a public one...
>
Hi Tim,
My use case in practice is effectively this - in the clean() method for a
form that has a 'code' field, plus a number of others:
def clean(self):
...
try:
validate_code(self.instance, code)
except ValidationError as e:
self._errors = e.u
Russ, could you include a code snippet of what no longer works? I think
there is a documented solution that involves modifying Form._errors (see
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.6/ref/forms/validation/#django.forms.Form.clean),
but I'm not sure if you're doing that or something different. Th
On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM, Curtis Maloney
wrote:
> Am I reading this right as "people used to commonly solve this problem by
> using an internal API, but now we have a public one... AND the old internal
> API is now changed"?
>
> If so, the solution seems obvious -- document that it's time
Am I reading this right as "people used to commonly solve this problem by
using an internal API, but now we have a public one... AND the old internal
API is now changed"?
If so, the solution seems obvious -- document that it's time to move the
the official solution :)
--
Curtis
On 27 June 2014
Hi Russ,
Good point and thanks for testing! For me, this should definitely be listed
in the release notes and we should provide people a hint of how to fix it
as well.
IMO we do not need to support a non-documented feature.
Wim
On Friday, 27 June 2014 07:58:27 UTC+2, Russell Keith-Magee wro
Hi all,
I've just done some testing of 1.7 against my 'day job' code base. The good
news is that everything has pretty much worked out of the box without any
problems.
However, I did find one regression, which I've opened as #22915 [1]. Full
details are on the ticket; the short version is that th
