Feature/session question unique key work around #119
Conversation
molo/surveys/models.py
Outdated
| @@ -82,8 +82,11 @@ class Meta: | |||
|
|
|||
| @property | |||
| def clean_name(self): | |||
| return str(slugify(text_type(unidecode( | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't we remove this whole method? Since you added it in your original PR and the base class does it like this?
molo/surveys/utils.py
Outdated
| self.new_answers.update({ | ||
| checkbox.clean_name: 'off' | ||
| for checkbox in self.pk_cleaned_missing_checkboxes | ||
| }) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@moh-moola Doesn't the above code mean that we're adding the missing checkboxes twice? Once with their clean_name and once with their pk_clean_name
And how does this affect checkboxes that were answered? because wouldn't that exist with their clean_name but not with their pk_clean_name and so we'll add conflicting information? Or will they get added before this?
molo/surveys/forms.py
Outdated
| @@ -20,6 +20,17 @@ | |||
| CHARACTER_COUNT_CHOICE_LIMIT = 512 | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| class SurveyBaseForm(BaseForm): | |||
|
|
|||
| def pk_cleaned_data(self, fields): | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would we be able to put this in the survey model? We could use the get_fields method and pass in the cleaned_data
That way you wouldn't have to overwrite the form class. Or am I missing something?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@KaitCrawford I am not sure how you mean by this, but I have since tried to clean up the code
|
@KaitCrawford Please review, I have implemented your suggested changes and all seems to be well |
No description provided.