On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:37 AM, Waldemar Kornewald <wkornew...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Why did you revert the AutoField patch? BTW, in the Django-nonrel >> patch you'll find a few other changes which were related to AutoField: >> ForeignKey needs to find out the actual database type instead of >> having a hard-coded IntegerField. We added related_db_type() for this >> purpose. Maybe you can reuse or adapt some of our code. Still, Django >> has a few unit tests which assume that assigning a string to an >> AutoField will fail, so we'll need to find a solution for that >> (probably by fixing the unit tests). >> > > No, the unittests are quite correct in this instance. I've gone back > and forth on this, but I believe the semantics of AutoField are "auto > incrementing field" not "automatically assigned field", and as such > the integer validation (and the fact that it occurs early) is a part > of the API and semantics and the tests are correct. Therefore it's my > intent to add an NativeAutoField, which is basically whatever the DB's > native auto field is, and has corrospondingly looser constraints, > pending a discussion with Russ.
Would this NativeAutoField become the default primary key field from now on or would MongoDB users have to manually specify that field? The former would be ok. The latter would make code reuse more difficult. Bye, Waldemar Kornewald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
