Opened 9 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#4737 closed (wontfix)

Split the model field options into those affecting the database and those affecting its appearance or validation.

Reported by: Lllama Owned by: nobody
Component: Documentation Version: master
Severity: Keywords: models docs validation
Cc: Triage Stage: Design decision needed
Has patch: yes Needs documentation: no
Needs tests: no Patch needs improvement: yes
Easy pickings: UI/UX:

Description

The attached documentation patch split the model field options into those affecting the model's representation in the database and those affecting its appearance or validation.

A slight confusion with 'blank' and 'null' meant that I was associating 'blank' with 'required'. This is a fair assumption for the majority of the time (admin app and forms do the same) but using the models in other scripts could cause some confusion when CharFields get created with empty strings by default.

Attachments (2)

diff.txt (3.7 KB) - added by Lllama 9 years ago.
Patch to docs for splitting model options into two categories
4737.patch (3.8 KB) - added by Chris Beaven 9 years ago.
as a trac readable diff (and a couple of minor changes)

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (6)

Changed 9 years ago by Lllama

Attachment: diff.txt added

Patch to docs for splitting model options into two categories

Changed 9 years ago by Chris Beaven

Attachment: 4737.patch added

as a trac readable diff (and a couple of minor changes)

comment:1 Changed 9 years ago by Chris Beaven

Has patch: set
Triage Stage: UnreviewedDesign decision needed

comment:2 Changed 9 years ago by Chris Beaven

Summary: Slight improvement to model documentation.Split the model field options into those affecting the database and those affecting its appearance or validation.

comment:3 Changed 9 years ago by Malcolm Tredinnick

Patch needs improvement: set

I don't like this change. We currently have one alphabetised list of field options that the reader needs to scan. This would change that into two lists, which isn't an improvement. How about just adding a short sentence to each of the options that apply at the database level noting that fact?

comment:4 Changed 9 years ago by James Bennett

Resolution: wontfix
Status: newclosed

Since the original point of this ticket has been vetoed, and since apparently nobody's interested enough to pick up Malcolm's suggestion, I'm going to close this.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Back to Top