I spoke too soon about this fixing the problem. It seems that 
adding/updating a record with such a field using the admin interface, and 
using a smartgrid, doesn't do it.

I create this table:

db.define_table('Test_bool',
                Field('test_bool', 'boolean'))

I also have the following at the start of my db.py model file:

db._adapter.types = copy.copy(db._adapter.types)
db._adapter.types['boolean']='TINYINT(1)'

Once web2py creates the table I confirm that MySQL has ccreated the field 
as TINYINT(1).

I go into the admin interface and insert a record, checking the test_bool 
checkbox. The INSERTed record has a 0 for that field. I try it again, same 
result. I then UPDATE one of those records, checking the test_bool 
checkbox, and the field remains at 0.

I then create a simple smartgrid:

def test_bool():
   grid = SQLFORM.smartgrid(
             db.Test_bool,
             deletable = True, editable = True, create = True
          )
   return locals()

I edit one of the records, checking the box, yet it doesn't 'take'.

Now, if I go in manually ans set the field to 1 (using MySQL Workbench, 
outside the web2py environment), then go to the grid, I see that the box is 
checked. If I uncheck it, that 'takes'.

??

Thanks.

On Saturday, September 22, 2012 7:21:07 AM UTC-6, MichaelF wrote:
>
> Converting to 2.x fixed the problems.
>
> On Wednesday, September 19, 2012 12:04:28 PM UTC-6, MichaelF wrote:
>>
>> I have come across one bug with this. If I add a record using the admin 
>> interface, I check the 'Is_home_team' checkbox (Is_home_team is defined as 
>> a boolean, of course), yet the record has 0 for that field. Given that, as 
>> you might expect then, all records have a 0 for that field.
>>
>> ??
>>
>> On Monday, September 17, 2012 9:53:34 PM UTC-6, MichaelF wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, that's unfortunate. I've migrated this semi-manually; I had only 
>>> four 'boolean' fields.
>>>
>>> Other than that, the suggested fix ( 
>>> db._adapter.types['boolean']='TINYINT(1)' ) seems to work.
>>>
>>> On Monday, September 17, 2012 8:42:24 PM UTC-6, Massimo Di Pierro wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I cannot reproduce this error with your code in 2.0.9 and the lines in 
>>>> your traceback do not correspond to the source code I have. I think you 
>>>> may 
>>>> be using an older dal.py
>>>>
>>>> On Monday, 17 September 2012 16:43:30 UTC-5, MichaelF wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes; here it is:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1.
>>>>> 2.
>>>>> 3.
>>>>> 4.
>>>>> 5.
>>>>> 6.
>>>>> 7.
>>>>> 8.
>>>>> 9.
>>>>>
>>>>> Traceback (most recent call last):
>>>>>   File "gluon/restricted.py", line 205, in restricted
>>>>>   File "C:/Program Files 
>>>>> (x86)/web2py/applications/NCAA_schedule/models/db.py" 
>>>>> <http://127.0.0.1:8000/admin/default/edit/NCAA_schedule/models/db.py>, 
>>>>> line 165, in <module>
>>>>>   File "gluon/dal.py", line 6320, in define_table
>>>>>   File "gluon/dal.py", line 742, in create_table
>>>>>   File "gluon/dal.py", line 797, in migrate_table
>>>>>   File "gluon/dal.py", line 6714, in __getitem__
>>>>> KeyError: 'length_is_yards'
>>>>>
>>>>> The table definition follows:
>>>>>
>>>>> db.define_table('Pool',
>>>>>                 Field('Pool_name', 'string', required=True, 
>>>>> unique=True),
>>>>>                 Field('Address1', 'string', length=60),
>>>>>                 Field('Address2', 'string', length=60),
>>>>>                 Field('City', 'string', length=60),
>>>>>                 Field('State', 'string', length=2),
>>>>>                 Field('Zip', 'string', length=15),
>>>>>                 Field('Nr_lanes', 'integer', required=True),
>>>>>                 Field('Length', 'integer', required=True),
>>>>>                 Field('Length_is_yards', 'boolean', 
>>>>> required=True,default=True),
>>>>>                 Field('Has_moveable_bulkhead', 'boolean', 
>>>>> required=True,
>>>>>                    default=False),
>>>>>                 format='%(Pool_name)s %(Nr_lanes)s')
>>>>>
>>>>> Line 165 is the last line of the statement (format=...).
>>>>>
>>>>> On Monday, September 17, 2012 3:15:08 PM UTC-6, Massimo Di Pierro 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a traceback with more information?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Monday, 17 September 2012 14:23:56 UTC-5, MichaelF wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks. However, I refer to that field with upper case in all 
>>>>>>> places. Can you tell me where the lower case 'pending' comes from? The 
>>>>>>> field name has always been defined as upper case, and the app has been 
>>>>>>> working up until I made that latest change. So I went into the db and 
>>>>>>> changed the field name to start with lower case, then changed the model 
>>>>>>> file to make it lower-case 'pending'. That worked, but now the next 
>>>>>>> boolean 
>>>>>>> field in the db.py file has an upper-case/lower-case problem. The field 
>>>>>>> is 
>>>>>>> "Length_is_yards" in both the db.py file and the db, and has been that 
>>>>>>> way 
>>>>>>> for weeks, and we've been through several db migrations for the past 
>>>>>>> several weeks (not sure about on those particular tables, though). Now 
>>>>>>> I 
>>>>>>> get the KeyError as shown above, but this time it's for field 
>>>>>>> 'length_is_yards'. It looks to me that web2py is assuming it's lower 
>>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One of my migrations last week was the "fake_migrate_all=True" type; 
>>>>>>> don't know if that's relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also, in the .database file the field name is Length_is_yards 
>>>>>>> (leading "L" is capital), as is the field name in the MySQL db.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm confused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Monday, September 17, 2012 12:51:34 PM UTC-6, Massimo Di Pierro 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Field('Pending' <<< upper case
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> <type 'exceptions.KeyError'> 'pending' <<< lower case
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Monday, 17 September 2012 11:37:13 UTC-5, MichaelF wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did a simple import of 'copy' and that got me by that first 
>>>>>>>>> problem. But now I have the following problem:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> db.define_table('Person_certification',
>>>>>>>>>                 Field('Person', db.Person),
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>                 Field('Pending', 'boolean', default = False),
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I get the following error on the line that defines field 'Pending' 
>>>>>>>>> (and this is the first 'boolean' type in the file):
>>>>>>>>> <type 'exceptions.KeyError'> 'pending'I have not changed the 
>>>>>>>>> underlying MySQL db yet; all the booleans are still char(1). Do I 
>>>>>>>>> need to 
>>>>>>>>> change them first to Tinyint(1)? I tried that; same error.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 17, 2012 9:21:37 AM UTC-6, MichaelF wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 1. What will I need to import to get it to recognize 'copy'? I 
>>>>>>>>>> run the suggested code and get told that 'copy' does not exist. (I'm 
>>>>>>>>>> running 2.5; what do I conditionally import?)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 2. Are we doing a copy because all the adapters share the same 
>>>>>>>>>> 'types' object?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 7, 2012 3:48:35 PM UTC-6, Massimo Di Pierro 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On can always do:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> db=DAL('mssql://...')
>>>>>>>>>>> db._adapter.types = copy.copy(db._adapter.types)
>>>>>>>>>>> db._adapter.types['boolean']='TINYINT(1)'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It should work. Can you please check it?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 7 August 2012 11:56:59 UTC-5, Osman Masood wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> However, web2py maintains the promise of backwards 
>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility. One way is to have a 'tinyint_boolean' datatype for 
>>>>>>>>>>>> those 
>>>>>>>>>>>> who want to use tinyints as booleans. But that looks kind of messy 
>>>>>>>>>>>> and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> inelegant. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> An alternative is this: We could add a migration script to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> /scripts to convert all boolean data types from CHAR(1) to 
>>>>>>>>>>>> TINYINT(1), and 
>>>>>>>>>>>> from 'T' to 1 and 'F' to 0. Also, when a table model is called in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> define_table(), it would check whether its boolean data types are 
>>>>>>>>>>>> CHAR or 
>>>>>>>>>>>> INT, and save the result somewhere (so it wouldn't have to keep 
>>>>>>>>>>>> checking.) 
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the server is restarted, it would once again perform this 
>>>>>>>>>>>> check. So, a 
>>>>>>>>>>>> user would run the migration script and simply restart the server.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 9:18:33 PM UTC+8, simon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have just come across this exact same issue. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The web2py adapter converts boolean to char(1) but in MySQL 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the specification is that boolean is stored as tinyint with 0 and 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. So 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> web2py adapter is incorrect. Not changing it perpetuates the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mistake.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, 6 March 2011 05:14:49 UTC, Kevin Ivarsen wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm connecting to a legacy MySQL database (migrate=False) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a lot 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of fields declared BOOLEAN, and noticed that attempts to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modify these 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fields with the DAL failed. The DAL issues a query like this: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UPDATE sometable SET someflag='T' WHERE ... 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but this gets rejected by MySQL. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reading through dal.py, I see that the "boolean" type maps to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CHAR(1) 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in MySQLAdapter, and represent() converts to "T" and "F" 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values. 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the BOOLEAN type is a synonym for TINYINT(1) in 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MySQL, with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> values 0 or 1, according to: 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/numeric-type-overview.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I can trivially change this behavior in dal.py for my 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> purposes, but it 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would be interested to try to incorporate this into the main 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> web2py 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution. Unfortunately, the trivial change will break 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility for people who are already depending on the 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior. Any thoughts on how this could be done in a 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backwards- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compatible way, or is it too much of an edge case to worry 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about? 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers, 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kevin
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>

-- 



Reply via email to