Admin does not correctly prefill DataTimeField from URL

[gilhad]

I was not able to format URL for Admin interface to prefill DateTimeField with given value.

It worked in 0.96, but does not work in 1.0 ( I used ../admin/MyApp/MyTable/add/?box=359&datum_date=2008-12-01&datum_time=17:30:27)

After some looking on source code and testing i find a solution:

• in /django/contrib/admin/options.py before line 520 add

    if isinstance(f, models.DateTimeField):
           initial[k] = initial[k].split(",")
  

• use this format: ​https://../admin/MyApp/MyTable/add/?box=359&datum=2008-12-01,17:30:27

For reference - the model of MyTable is such :

class MyTable(models.Model):
        box = models.ForeignKey(Boxes)
        datum =  models.DateTimeField(null=True, blank=True)

(plus some other insignificant fields.
The "datum" field should be prefilled with some date, which is computed by long way (not simple now()) and the use must be able to edit it BEFORE saving it)

---

The problem arises from DateTimeField be treated by MultiWidget, but not properly broken when got by URL (GET)

---

Patch:

--- options.py.old      2008-12-01 19:56:34.000000000 +0100
+++ options.py  2008-12-01 19:40:34.000000000 +0100
@@ -517,6 +517,8 @@
                     continue
                 if isinstance(f, models.ManyToManyField):
                     initial[k] = initial[k].split(",")
+                if isinstance(f, models.DateTimeField):
+                    initial[k] = initial[k].split(",")
             form = ModelForm(initial=initial)
             for FormSet in self.get_formsets(request):
                 formset = FormSet(instance=self.model())

[gilhad]

Typo - (Admin does NOT correctly prefill DataTimeField from URL (GET) + patch)

[mtredinnick]

Edited description for clarity.

Please attach a proper patch to the ticket, rather than mixing the proposed changes into the description of the problem. It makes things a lot easier for reviewing and further improvements (if subsequent patches are made).

[gilhad]

Added patch for code AND documentation

[dArignac]

attached a new diff for the current source and added test

[Gandalfar]

patch against r17364

[Gandalfar]

I've tested that patch works correctly with current trunk and cleaned-up docs syntax.