#35044: Accessing a deferred field clears reverse relations
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: Giannis
| Terzopoulos
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: Database layer | Version: dev
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Simon Charette):
> Not sure how I would deal with the private fields though to be honest,
or if we actually need to handle that.
yeah not sure either, I suggest trying the same approach that avoids
clearing if `fields` is specified and the private field name is not part
of them. My only concern is that I'm not sure how `.only` will behave when
passed private field names. In all cases the only regression test existing
for #34137
[https://github.com/django/django/commit/123b1d3fcf79f091573c40be6da7113a6ef35b62
#diff-0e842fa4e4a689b120379780e62dc71a1476a409e21ccd09eac181ec5a2314d8R50
doesn't make use] of `fields` so it's in a grey area.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/35044#comment:3>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/0107018d760e4dea-4f40e66b-f100-4063-9093-911121eb7e56-000000%40eu-central-1.amazonses.com.
