[xdata] Do not lookup fields of forms without FORM_TYPE in registry #462
Conversation
Flowdalic
force-pushed
the
relax-forms
branch
from
d7f47c8
to
46ea706
Compare
|
This nearly allows the use of forms without a FORM_TYPE. However there is still one case that gives unpredictable results: When you parse a form without a FORM_TYPE, containing a field without a type, it will use the field type of a registered field with the same name. Instead it should use the default field type text-single. Created PR Flowdalic#25 |
|
Would you consider relaxing the requirement for a FORM_TYPE in the FilledForm class as well? It would allow the FilledForm and FillableForm API to be used for forms without a FORM_TYPE, this API is quite a bit easier to use then using the DataForm Builder when filling out a form. Using the DataForm and Field builders would probably mean duplicating the code in FillableForm. Subclasses can (and do) use the ensureFormType method to enforce a FORM_TYPE. |
The initial implementation was to restrictive, as it would throw together differents fields, having the same field name but a different field type. This potentially causes parsing exception, if, e.g. a boolean value is expected, but a non-boolean string was provided. We now simply assume that fields are of the default type, if we can not determine the type. Which is close to the original behavior and should be, for the most part, correct.
Flowdalic
force-pushed
the
relax-forms
branch
from
46ea706
to
a71d16a
Compare
|
A (better?) alternative to this PR could be #464 |
No description provided.