Fixed #13009 -- Added BoundField.widget_type property.

[smithdc1]

Ticket

The issue explained in the ticket of rendering fields (widgets, really) dependant upon their type is a key part of crispy-forms. This project solved it by adding a limited number of filters so you can do something like this.

{% for field in fields %}
{% if field|is_checkbox %}
  # render a checkbox
{% elif field|is_file %}
  # render a file field
[...]

I've replicated that approach here, and for completeness I've added a filter for each of the widget types, added tests and docs.

There are comments on the ticket about multifield (multiwidget). I think for now just knowing it is a multiwidget is enough. Over at crispy-forms the project still hasn't found a way to deal with these widgets and all their complexities.

Appreciate your thoughts on this one.

[claudep]

I'm not so much thrilled by this new load of new template filters. What about a new BoundField property (widget_type?) returning the lowercased widget class name stripped from the widget or input strings?
In that case, if I have defined a MyCustomWidget, the (bound)field.widget_type would by mycustom.

[smithdc1]

I've updated this to add a new property to BoundField as suggested. Here are what I think the pros/cons of each option are.

I think the filter approach gives a better result in the templates. i.e. I think that 1) is better than 2)

1. field|is_checkbox
2. `field.widget_type == 'checkboxinput'

However, from a Django perspective the second option is by far a cleaner implementation and has the benefit of working with custom widgets. The filter method; however is, well, a little repetitive.

So for me, it's a trade off between a better experience for users building their templates vs impact on Django code base.

On the current version, the tests need moving to a better home, but I'm not quite sure where they are best placed. Appreciate some guidance on this.

[felixxm]

@smithdc1 I agree with Claude. I would chop new (one-line) filters and limit this change to the new widget_type property.

[carltongibson]

I squashed, rebased, and pushed a fixup with some suggested edits.

• Removed the docstring from widget_type. I didn't think the full example appropriate there, and by the time I'd removed that, it just repeated the single code line, so...
• Moved the tests with the other boundfield tests in test_forms.
• Some small rewording edits.

This LGTM. 👍 Thanks @smithdc1

[claudep]

Thanks!

[felixxm]

Thanks y'all 👍