Re: [Modeling-users] Re: initial value of required fields
Status: Abandoned
Brought to you by:
sbigaret
From: John L. <jl...@gm...> - 2004-07-21 17:38:47
|
On 21 Jul 2004 19:34:35 +0200, Sebastien Bigaret <sbi...@us...> wrote: >=20 > John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:17:42 -0300, John Lenton <jl...@gm...> wro= te: > > > S=E9bastien, would having an option for required fields being > > > initialized to non-null values be ok with you? > > > > > > In a project I'm overseeing the team finds it unnatural that a > > > required field that isn't filled in won't raise an exception, and I > > > thought the easy way out (while I thump them with a > > > validate-everything stick) would be to make it optional... >=20 > Sorry, but I'm not sure to understand: are you facing situations where > objects with None value in required field did not make ec.saveChanges() > raise? >=20 > > FWIW, now they're using defaultValue to do the same thing... and maybe > > that's enough. >=20 > If tyhis is just a matter of initialization then yes, the default values > should be enough, or am I missing something? no, you're not. Just initialization. The first mail went out before I was reminded of defaultValue... and further tests confirmed that it was what we wanted. Should've let you know; sorry. --=20 John Lenton (jl...@gm...) -- Random fortune: bash: fortune: command not found |