Yes, Anthony you are right, there is no need to for more validators. Was just thinking of a different naming convention to clear the ambiguity we have now, because for checkboxes IS_NOT_EMPTY() means the same as IS_EQUAL_TO(True). Unfortunately, I don't think there is a way to achieve the behaviour I am looking for without adding some JavaScript on the client side when the form is generated in order to create a distinction between value not submitted (which is what the IS_NOT_EMPTY() would use) and False.
Thanks, Francisco On Thursday, 4 December 2014 16:23:35 UTC, Anthony wrote: > > I'm not sure I follow. What would an IS_CHECKED validator do? If the > purpose is to ensure a box is checked, then you can already use > IS_EQUAL_TO(True). But that's not the behavior you were looking for. You > wanted the validation to succeed whether or not the box was checked, and > the problem there is not with the validator but with the value that is > passed to the validator when the box is not checked. It's not clear how a > new validator would help here, as such a validator would be completely > superfluous. > > Anthony > > On Thursday, December 4, 2014 8:12:17 AM UTC-5, Francisco Ribeiro wrote: >> >> Anthony, >> this is what I'm doing now. I am aware of that, the problem starts on the >> interpretation given to the request sent by the browser for checkboxes for >> these fields which I thought it should be if it is toggled means True, if >> not it means False. I do understand however that for most scenarios the >> current interpretation is more useful. The alternative would be to add a >> validator called "IS_CHECKED()" to include the distinction missing. >> >> Thank you, >> Francisco >> >> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 12:30:01 UTC, Anthony wrote: >>> >>> Note, the problem is not with the validator -- if you pass it the value >>> False, it will successfully validate. The issue is that when a checkbox is >>> not checked, the browser sends nothing back for that form field (it does >>> not send back a value of False), so the value passed to the validator ends >>> up being None rather than False. >>> >>> In your case, just change your code slightly so the validator doesn't >>> get assigned in the case of boolean fields. Assuming you have the field >>> type stored somehow: >>> >>> if is_required and type != 'boolean': >>> >>> Or better yet, just set is_required to False for boolean fields. >>> >>> Anthony >>> >>> On Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:00:00 AM UTC-5, Francisco Ribeiro wrote: >>>> >>>> Kiran, >>>> I did not assign the default value of False explicitly but implicitly >>>> since it's already the default. >>>> >>>> Anthony, >>>> I understand the interpretation currently in place but if you think >>>> about this, validators are supposed to accept allowed values *first* and >>>> reject all others. True and False are the allowed values here and must >>>> have >>>> precedence to be accepted. Checkboxes are UIs for boolean types, so an >>>> unticked box means False, it does not mean NULL. >>>> >>>> On my scenario I have a dynamically generated form using >>>> SQLFORM.factory() where one my attributes for each form field is >>>> "is_required". So these things are stored on the DB, defining how the form >>>> should be generated and the way I was handling it was by adding the >>>> IS_NOT_EMPTY() validator to the form field if has the parameter >>>> is_required >>>> == True on its definition. It works fine for all other input fields tested >>>> where IS_NOT_EMPTY() makes sense but checkboxes broke it. >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> Francisco >>>> >>>> On Thursday, 4 December 2014 11:48:04 UTC, Anthony wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If a boolean widget can only be true or false and never empty, then >>>>> there is no need for this validator to begin with, so just remove it. Are >>>>> you suggesting that the validator itself should be changed to always >>>>> return >>>>> success for booleans? If so, what would be the point? >>>>> >>>>> Anthony >>>> >>>> -- Resources: - http://web2py.com - http://web2py.com/book (Documentation) - http://github.com/web2py/web2py (Source code) - https://code.google.com/p/web2py/issues/list (Report Issues) --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "web2py-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to web2py+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
