On 03/26/2014 06:06 AM, Curtis Maloney wrote:
Further, as an "expert" feature, would it be unreasonable to
limit its use to cases where you know it will benefit, but
also only be used in a single connection? True, this limits
its use cases somewhat, but it's sti
I'd like to solve this with a way to add methods to QuerySets. This
would be useful for those who want get_or_none() or other similar
shortcut methods which Django doesn't provide. But more importantly this
would let third party apps to provide queryset methods.
If this was possible, then one
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 4:26 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen
wrote:
> I'd like to solve this with a way to add methods to QuerySets. This
> would be useful for those who want get_or_none() or other similar shortcut
> methods which Django doesn't provide. But more importantly this would let
> third party app
On 03/26/2014 10:46 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
Isn't this already possible by defining a custom queryset? And even
easier in 1.7 with the introduction of .as_manager()?
The only thing the custom Queryset approach doesn't allow is to monkey
patch the get_or_none method into *all* managers b
You could (ab)use MethodType to add a new method to the class, but you'd
want to make sure the Manager was using a custom QuerySet first [or force
it to if it weren't] so as not to alter it for all default Managers.
Just my 0.02 units of currency.
--
C
On 26 March 2014 19:26, Anssi Kääriäinen
>
> we can't promote adding random strings to MIGRATION_MODULES as the
> suggested way to "get around" migrations for tests.
>
I agree, my workaround is a hack. It would be better to introduce a flag or
setting designed specifically for this use case.
> In my opinion, the whole point of migr
Hi all,
It's been a while since I submitted my GSOC proposal. Although I am
currently under exams, is there anything you would recommend me to do at
this point (other than hope that my proposal is successful)?
Thanks,
Daniel Pyrathon
On Thursday, March 20, 2014 6:05:40 AM UTC, Russell Keith-Ma
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Florian Apolloner
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, March 20, 2014 2:01:25 PM UTC+1, Cal Leeming [Simplicity
>> Media Ltd] wrote:
>>>
>>> I'll give it a couple more days for a BDF
2014-03-26 9:16 GMT+01:00 Anssi Kääriäinen :
> We can do this by having a map of SQL for the statement -> name of the
> prepared statement in the connection. On connection close the known
> statements are cleaned.
Yes, that seems correct.
Since prepared statements are connection-local, it makes
Hi Cal,
When we proposed to add get_or_none() , we actually ended up adding a
first() -method. The primary motives were to have a clearer name and to
stay in line with other existing api's.
In my opinion, get_or_none is too much a duplicate of first and I am
therefore -1 of it being added.
F
When I practice TDD I write the test to spec, and then write the model and
view code, so I usually have about the same amount of model changes as
otherwise (as, having written the tests, I usually have a clearer idea of
what fields I need). I agree that if you're incrementally writing tests on
top
Well, I think this kind of feature is in the same category of my request:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/django-developers/N6xazCaJC_E. I
haven’t received so many feedbacks though.
It’s all about writing less code to reach the goal. I belive too much
abstraction is not a good thing for
Hi,
I improved my benchmarks: http://nbviewer.ipython.org/gist/adamkal/9171081
Alex was right about those variables and new benchmarks have proved it.
I also created a draft of how it might look like for
Options.get_field_by_name (as this returns 4-tuple):
https://github.com/adamkal/django/co
Hi Daniel,
Nope - other than "cross your fingers" that your proposal is accepted :-)
But seriously...
If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading Django's contribution docs, and
getting your development environment set up. Make sure you can run Django's
test suite. If you're particularly enthuse
On Wed, Mar 26, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] <
cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 11:40 PM, Russell Keith-Magee <
> russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:31 PM, Florian Apolloner > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Thurs
On Thursday, March 27, 2014 3:10:13 AM UTC+2, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
>
> In my ideal world, the get(default=None) approach would be what we would
> do; but, as others have pointed out, default is a valid column name, so
> this option isn't available to us. We already have a shortcut for
> ge
If you haven't already got all your databases installed on your development
machine, I *highly* recommend checking out
https://github.com/jphalip/djangocore-box. It's a vagrant VM environment
that already has MySQL, PostgreSQL, and SQLite installed (plus most GIS
installations), along with vari
17 matches
Mail list logo
