Hey, this recent commit removes the :errors attribute from the <.form> component and now this code raises a warning about non-existent errors attribute:
What I’m doing here is using the form component in a regular (non-live) view and managing the errors without a changeset. The code still works, because AFAIK it calls to_form underneath.
Was this an intentional change? cc @josevalim as the author of the commit.
Should I now use to_form explicitly moving forward?
The docs now mention using conn.params instead of Plug.Conn as a potential source for form data. Should I now start doing for={@conn.params} instead?
Last time I checked there were some ideas to change how Phoenix (LiveView) approaches forms (also form[field] instead of {form, field}) and it seems this is related to that. Is there any writeup on the new approach?
Just reverted, thanks. We added the feature back later but I skipped the declarative assign bit. Please test and let me know!
Not necessary, it is optional.
From now on, yes. We are unifying as for={data} as={name}, where data is either a map or a changeset (or a form). Before we could have for={:name}, which was very confusing!
@josevalim One more thing that I stumbled across: the implementation of the Access behaviour for Phoenix.Formonly allows atom keys and that’s unfortunate for working with dynamic fields like so:
<.form :let={form} for={@conn.params} action={~p"/foobar"}>
<%= for id <- [1, 2, 3] do %>
<.input type="checkbox" field={form[to_string(id)]} />
<% end %>
<.submit>submit</.submit>
</.form>
This blows up with a function clause error. Can we get the support for string keys?
BTW I think it was meant to be caught by the second function head, but I’m guessing there’s a typo:
def get(%Form{}, field) do
raise ArgumentError,
"accessing a form with form[field] requires the field to be atom, got: #{inspect(field)}"
end
I thought that was a typo too, but I was getting that exception while doing the upgrade.
Does using the . call fetch and using [] call get? I got lost after tracing it to the special form . where the source told me to bugger off, the compiler handles it.
What I found confusing at first was that get is not part of the Accessbehaviour, only fetch and get_and_update and pop. However, it seems be be implemented for the form and in Accessible. But if it were, I guess you’d be able to use [] on a struct? It does seem silly to pop on a struct too
