Hi,
If it's not too much work, creating pull requests could help give some
context and show a bit more of the impact of your proposed changes. Some
days I think I'm better at reading Python than English :)
value_from_object maybe should be value_from_instance or
get_instance_value, as in, pick this field's value off of the model
instance. "Field.get_field_value" sounds redundant.
Re: value_from_object and save_form_data: looking at some code I wrote 5
years ago that has mostly been untouched, renaming these would break my
code, but they are undocumented after all. I agree that the two go hand in
hand. I'd almost rather rename value_from_object to get_form_data, just so
it's clear what's going on. :)
While we're on the subject: it would be great if formfields also had a way
to override this getting and setting :) ("No, I want the _object_ not the
integer from the FK" :)
Re: _get_cache_name(), using "name" makes more sense to me than "attname",
but I'm curious more about this "field.name not necessarily unique" change
:).
Thanks,
Collin
On Monday, March 2, 2015 at 12:37:37 AM UTC-5, Thomas Stephenson wrote:
>
> I was wondering whether there would be support for changes to some of the
> methods on the field API...
>
> 1. Rename `Field._get_val_from_obj` and `Field.value_from_object` methods
>
> These two methods do exactly the same thing (except one returns a default
> value if available). In addition, the 'value_from_object' is confusingly
> named, as it performs a completely different function than
> `value_to_string` and `to_python`, but is named similarly.
>
> Both of these methods should be deprecated and a new method
> `Field.get_field_value(model_instance, use_default=True)` should be added.
> If `use_default` is provided and `True`, then the implementation should
> redirect to `field.get_default()`, otherwise an AttributeError would be
> raised.
>
> 2. Rename `Field.save_form_data`
>
> `Field.save_form_data()` should be renamed to `Field.get_field_value()`
> for symmetry with `Field.get_field_value()`.
>
> 3. `Field._get_cache_name()` and should use field.attname.
>
> I'm planning to submit a PR in the next couple of days that makes `
> field.name` not necessarily unique. All non-hidden fields will still be
> unique, so it won't cause a problem with the `model._meta.get_field()` API,
> but it will cause problems if fields can overwrite each others cached
> values. This should not be a breaking change, since _get_cache_name is an
> implementation detail.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6d6bad97-647c-4a8c-ba83-b567b9094d82%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
