#33106 closed New feature (wontfix)
ModelMultipleChoiceField clean() method calls prepare_value instead of to_python
Reported by: | Adam McKay | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Forms | Version: | 3.2 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
The Form and field validation documentation says:
The clean() method on a Field subclass is responsible for running to_python(), validate(), and run_validators() in the correct order and propagating their errors.
However the clean()
method of ModelMultipleChoiceField
calls value = self.prepare_value(value)
which is causing issues for my use case of hiding primary keys on forms using a hashids module as I am subclassing the to_python
and prepare_values
methods to ensure the pk
exposed to users are encoded/decoded as appropriate, however the to_python
method is not called as an error “encodedValue” is not a valid value.
is returned to the user because the value is not correctly decoded when it is checked as a valid choice.
I have written a test case for tests/model_forms/test_modelchoicefield.py
in ModelChoiceFieldTests
which for this test merely adds 42
to the pk
before exposing it to the user to demonstrate the behaviour:
def test_clean_serializes_input(self): class EncryptedModelMultipleChoiceField(forms.ModelMultipleChoiceField): """Hide pk by modifying by 42""" def to_python(self, value): if not value: return [] if hasattr(value, '__iter__'): return [int(getattr(v, 'pk', v)) - 42 for v in value] return int(getattr(value, 'pk', value)) - 42 def prepare_value(self, value): if not value: return [] if hasattr(value, '__iter__'): return [int(getattr(v, 'pk', v)) + 42 for v in value] return int(getattr(value, 'pk', value)) + 42 f = EncryptedModelMultipleChoiceField(Category.objects.all()) print(f.widget.render('name', []),) self.assertHTMLEqual( f.widget.render('name', []), """<select name="name" multiple> <option value="%s">Entertainment</option> <option value="%s">A test</option> <option value="%s">Third</option> </select>""" % (self.c1.pk + 42, self.c2.pk + 42, self.c3.pk + 42), ) with self.assertRaises(ValidationError): f.clean('') with self.assertRaises(ValidationError): f.clean(None) with self.assertRaises(ValidationError): f.clean(0) self.assertEqual(['Entertainment'], [c.name for c in f.clean([self.c1.pk + 42])]) self.assertEqual(['Entertainment', 'Third'], [c.name for c in f.clean([self.c1.pk + 42, self.c3.pk + 42])])
Change History (1)
comment:1 by , 3 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Type: | Bug → New feature |
Hi Adam — thanks for the report. Interesting.
This kind of mapping has never really been supported, so I'd say this is a new feature rather than a bug. That's probably a small distinction but it does point to a way forward, which is that it would be good to see the required implementation out of Django before deciding whether to make a change here.
Your test doesn't seem right. If I comment out the offending line, the test still fails (
43 is not one of the available choices.
rather than85 is not one of the available choices.
— so the42
is not being applied the extra time, but neither is it being removed into_python
) but now we get the additional failure from #26970 (4e861682904744b0ea3ead8552513c6f1a826c5a).I use hashids myself at times. I'm inclined to think addressing the mapping at the form
Field
level is something of a no-man's land. I'd either push it towards the model field, which is what django-hashid-field does — thechoice
then just working — or (which is where I'd look since I don't tend to use the custom model field) push the mapping to a custom ModelChoiceIterator/ModelChoiceIteratorValue pair for generating the HTML and a custom widget to map the value back invalue_from_datadict()
, thus keeping the mapping at the periphery. Otherwise a bit more work onModelMultipleChoiceField
subclass looks needed. (Likely Nathan on django-hashid-field would be able to guide you more.)