Opened 3 years ago
Closed 3 years ago
#33484 closed Cleanup/optimization (wontfix)
Improve docs about date lookup filter
Reported by: | MojixCoder | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | 4.0 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
Django docs about date
lookup filter:
For datetime fields, casts the value as date. Allows chaining additional field lookups. Takes a date value.
But I have tried that we can also use a string value representing the date or datetime object instead of date object.
and also all of the examples of this filter are implemented using date objects.
Shouldn't we add that we can also pass a string or datetime value instead of date?
So the docs says it only takes date object.
But in reality it takes datetime, date, str objects.
Here is the https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.0/ref/models/querysets/#date in the docs.
Change History (6)
comment:1 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:3 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:4 by , 3 years ago
Summary: | Improve docs → Improve docs about date lookup filter |
---|
comment:5 by , 3 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:6 by , 3 years ago
Resolution: | → wontfix |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Hi MojixCoder.
I'm going to say
wontfix
here.That you can pass a
datetime
or suitably formatted string is relying on the internals ofDateField.to_python()
. If you know about it then fair enough, but I don't think it makes for more readable code to document and promote that. It's more in-line with the expectations to just use, and just show using, a date.Moreover, if we open the gates here we probably need to reference
django.utils.dateparse.parse_date()
, and give examples of the kinds of values that are acceptable, and then maybe expandDateField
docs to leak some of that info too — which is all implementation details. I'm not at all sure it makes anything clearer for the majority of readers.Nonetheless, if you want to suggest a concise edit, we can consider.
I hope that makes sense.