Add ability to specify output format for DurationField

[sevdog]

Description

As explained in #8527 this PR will provide the ability to choose the output format for DurationFields.

Since Python builtim timedelta object does not have any format function we are going to allow only formats which are already defined in Django codebase in the package django.utils.duration:

• duration_string
• duration_iso_string

[lovelydinosaur]

Thanks - good to talk this through from a docs-first perspective.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[pietzschke]

Can we reopen this?

[pietzschke]

I think it's not possible to contribute to the pr to solve the conflicts, @sevdog would you be able to do it?
Otherwise i will create a new one and do the fixes.

[sevdog]

Just rebased the PR, the "conflict" was a very silly issue in the doc file 🤷‍♂️

CI is failing due to a change in django-main branch, it should be addressed in an other PR.

[auvipy]

I saw FAILED tests/test_fields.py::TestISOOutputFormatDurationField::test_outputs
=========== 1 failed,

[sevdog]

Ok, fixed the test. It was a long lasting double typo (wrong class and wrong format).

[auvipy]

we should merge this only in a major release

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[ulgens]

The fix seems still relevant.

[auvipy]

I'm not sure if this will be accepted or not, but if it is accepted, fixing the merge conflict should be enough

[sevdog]

Conflict revolved.

[peterthomassen]

Thanks for resolving the conflict; some more comments here!

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[pietzschke]

Can we have stale flag removed? We still need this @auvipy

[sevdog]

I am still waiting to get a response in this thread.

I was also thinking of re-creating the branch and the PR to have less noise and a cleaner git history.

[sevdog]

I have updated the code and docs according to latest comments.

The validation check for format is performed in both __init__ and to_representation methods because it may be altered by the user during the lifecycle of the field or the initial config could be wrong. I have not put a check also in the settings item just to not have the same logic in 3 different points (2 are more than enough and those are already safe), it could be added with a minimal effor to raise also an ImproperlyConfigured.

[peterthomassen]

sorry, overlooked something.

[peterthomassen]

almost! 🙃

[peterthomassen]

lgtm!

[browniebroke]

Let's keep it as is

over a year old

[auvipy]

thanks for the patience!