On Nov 23, 2007 3:29 PM, Todd O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How do you clean a field that's supposed to be a date or a number, for > example, if the user doesn't provide a legal date or number? If you're > not allowed to throw validation errors during cleaning, you could find > yourself in a situation where your later cleaning code makes > assumptions that aren't true. Better to realize that, in the process > of cleaning, you may discover validation problems that require errors. > > Todd
Makes sense! I was probably to narrow-minded on my use case. So I step back from splitting it up into clean() and validate(). Making available all the cleaned_data inside each clean_<field>() method is just what is needed! thx for all the input and help! Wolfram > > On Nov 23, 2007 8:59 AM, Wolfram Kriesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > We discussed this here again, and it looks like newforms currently > > mixes cleaning and validating data in a not so ideal way. > > > > Actually the clean and validation process should be separated, there > > should be clean-methods and validate-methods. The process should work > > in the following way, to allow full flexibility: > > > > 1) call Field.clean() - to clean the data, NOT throw any errors, just > > do basic data cleaning if necessary. > > 2) call Form.clean_<field>() - provide _all_form_ data to this method, > > so it can also clean the data depending on other form data > > 3) call Form.clean() - stuff that needs to be done _after_ every > > single field had been cleaned > > > > 4) call Field.validate() - use the cleaned data to validate the fields > > 5) call Form.validate_<field>() > > 6) call Form.validate() > > > > looks cleaner in my eyes. opinions please! > > > > wolfram > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2007 2:45 PM, Wolfram Kriesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Nov 23, 2007 2:41 PM, Matthias Kestenholz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 14:30 +0100, Wolfram Kriesing wrote: > > > > > :-) yep we also discussed that here > > > > > still it seems "wrong" that it needs to be done with such a hacky way > > > > > around > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think that's hacky at all, really. If you want an URLField, you > > > > get a field that guarantees that it really contains an URL. Otherwise it > > > > should get called fields.MaybeURLField, and what would be the difference > > > > between that and a plain CharField? > > > > > > > > You can even validate the URL in clean_url() > > > > > > > > But take whatever works for you... > > > > > > sounds right too :-). thx for the help! > > > but see the other two drawbacks i wrote in the other mail > > > > > > wolfram > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > http://spinlock.ch/blog/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > cu > > > > > > Wolfram > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > cu > > > > Wolfram > > > > > > > > > > > > -- cu Wolfram --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
