Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago
Original comment by per.djurner@gmail.com
on 7 May 2009 at 3:08
Original comment by tpetru...@gmail.com
on 29 Jun 2009 at 10:44
Original comment by per.djurner@gmail.com
on 13 Nov 2009 at 12:16
Original comment by per.djurner@gmail.com
on 16 Nov 2009 at 1:53
I think this is very useful, I'll take it on
Original comment by andybellenie
on 16 Jun 2010 at 11:49
Changed mind, pushing this back to help get 1.1 out of the door.
Original comment by andybellenie
on 17 Jun 2010 at 12:07
I think Tony wanted to keep this as 1.1, resetting.
Original comment by per.djurner@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:13
Ok, any suggestions on how to do it? The combining is done server-side on the
submitted form, so we'd have to pass something through in the post, which is
going to be very messy.
Original comment by andybellenie
on 17 Jun 2010 at 2:22
looking at the $createParams method of the dispatcher, it looks like these are
combined based of the name. ie mydate($year) and mydate($month) get merged
together. it should be simply enough. using the suggested combineDateParts
argument, just remove the ($[part]). so if combineDateParts is false then the
fields should be named: mydate-year and mydate-month.
thoughts?
Original comment by tpetru...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 4:19
Makes sense to me.
Original comment by per.djurner@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 4:49
Original comment by tpetru...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:01
This issue was closed by revision r4546.
Original comment by tpetru...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:38
NOTES
=====
the argument is simply name "combine" instead of the suggested
"combineDateParts"
i had to use objectName[property-part] in order not to break the params naming
convention.
also there is no default value setting like there is when date parts are
combine. the reason for this is that by not combining the data parts we can
assume that the developer even wants a valid date.
by not having the data parts combined we giving the developer the raw form
input in the params and it is up to them to validate it.
Original comment by tpetru...@gmail.com
on 17 Jun 2010 at 5:45
Original issue reported on code.google.com by
per.djurner@gmail.com
on 10 Apr 2009 at 1:44