The biggest difference between TabularInline and StackedInline is the direction in which the fields are arranged(row or column).
Currently,
TabularInline and StackedInline seem to clearly showcase their differences.However, I don’t think there should be any difference regarding the
__str__ of the Form objects inside TabularInline and StackedInline.As shown in the image above,
TabularInline only displays the object’s __str__, while StackedInline adds the model name and a colon as a prefix to the object’s __str__. (Additionally, the font size in TabularInline is very small, and there is a noticeable font size difference compared to StackedInline. Furthermore, the font size of the fields also changes when the screen resize.)
As mentioned above, TabularInline and StackedInline already effectively represent their unique characteristics through the arrangement of fields, so I don’t understand the difference in the object(str) related parts. I believe these should be made uniform to improve consistency between the Inlines.
Additionally, when the show_change_link attribute is set to True to add a link in the inline, the background image in TabularInline gets slightly cut off at the bottom.
I think it would be better if the
show_change_link attribute were set to True by default. Also, when the show_change_link attribute is set to True, I feel that the background image and text(Change or View) that appear are unnecessary. This is because the form already effectively represents these characteristics.I have applied the link to the object’s __str__ as shown in the example above. However, when making changes like this, additional handling may be needed if the __str__ is empty or contains something like “-”.
To summarize the points so far, I believe there needs to be consistency in the object __str__ section for TabularInline and StackedInline. By setting the default value of the show_change_link attribute to True and making the link more streamlined, accessibility can be improved, and it will look cleaner as well. ![]()
I have already created an issue regarding this and feel that further discussion is needed.
(I would appreciate feedback or thoughts from others on these proposed changes.)




