Support for fieldname-prefixed values on sample header submit #2364
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Some widgets use more than one form value on submit, not only the one retrieved by the field name
xispa
changed the title
ramonski
approved these changes
Aug 24, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of the issue/feature this PR addresses
Some widgets use more than one form value on submit, not only the one retrieved by the field name. For instance, the field
TemporaryIdentifierWidgetexpects to recieve multiple values on it'sprocess_formfunction (see https://github.com/senaite/senaite.patient/blob/master/src/senaite/patient/browser/widgets/temporaryidentifier.py#L30).This Pull Request simply takes into account prefixed values from the form with same fieldname when calling the
processformfunction from the widget.Current behavior before PR
The information for some fields is not saved properly in sample header form
Desired behavior after PR is merged
The information for all fields is saved properly in sample header form
--
I confirm I have tested this PR thoroughly and coded it according to PEP8
and Plone's Python styleguide standards.