Re: pre_save signal on Inherited Model?

2014-08-20 Thread Florian Apolloner
Hi Leo, On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 2:48:07 AM UTC+2, Leo Hillman wrote: > > — pre_delete registered on parent model: fired > — pre_save registered on parent model: not fired > That sounds inconsistent at least. Can you open a ticket for that? Cheers, Florian -- You received this message

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 6:03 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Monday, August 18, 2014 7:45:17 AM UTC+3, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> >> I understand what you're driving at here, and I've had similar thoughts >> over the course of the SoC. The catch is that this makes the API for >> get_fields()

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Marc Tamlyn
I'd say ArrayField is a straight up data field at the moment. It stores 0-1 lists of data. It's no different to CommaSeparatedIntegerField (seriously, why does that exists...) *If* PG gets the relevant update that will allow `integer[] references` (i.e. ArrayField(ForeignKey)) then this would be d

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Ivan Kharlamov
On 08/20/2014 12:46 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > I'd say ArrayField is a straight up data field at the moment. It stores > 0-1 lists of data. It's no different to CommaSeparatedIntegerField > (seriously, why does that exists...) > > *If* PG gets the relevant update that will allow `integer[] reference

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Ivan Kharlamov
On 08/20/2014 03:52 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: > On 08/20/2014 12:46 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: >> I'd say ArrayField is a straight up data field at the moment. It stores >> 0-1 lists of data. It's no different to CommaSeparatedIntegerField >> (seriously, why does that exists...) >> >> *If* PG gets the

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Ivan Kharlamov
On 08/20/2014 04:28 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: > On 08/20/2014 03:52 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: >> On 08/20/2014 12:46 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: >>> I'd say ArrayField is a straight up data field at the moment. It stores >>> 0-1 lists of data. It's no different to CommaSeparatedIntegerField >>> (serious

Re: pre_save signal on Inherited Model?

2014-08-20 Thread charettes
This might be related to #9318 . Le mardi 19 août 2014 20:48:07 UTC-4, Leo Hillman a écrit : > > I just wanted to write a preliminary post about this before gathering a > little more data. When extending a non-abstract model (Python inheritance) > it s

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Anssi Kääriäinen
On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:19:33 AM UTC+3, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > I think Daniel and I might have come up with a way to meet both these > requirements - a minimalist API for get_fields, with at least some > protection against the known incoming backwards compatibility issue. > > The

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Shai Berger
On Wednesday 20 August 2014 10:29:49 Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:19:33 AM UTC+3, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > > This yields the following formal API for _meta: > > * get_fields(data, many_to_many, related, include_hidden, > > include_parents)

[ANNOUNCE] Django security releases issued

2014-08-20 Thread James Bennett
Today we've issued releases to address four security issues reported to us. Full disclosure is on the djangoproject.com weblog: https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2014/aug/20/security/ All users are encouraged to upgrade. Additionally, for anyone who missed it, last week we published an adviso

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: > On 08/20/2014 03:52 PM, Ivan Kharlamov wrote: > > On 08/20/2014 12:46 PM, Marc Tamlyn wrote: > >> I'd say ArrayField is a straight up data field at the moment. It stores > >> 0-1 lists of data. It's no different to CommaSeparatedIntegerFiel

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:29 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:19:33 AM UTC+3, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >> I think Daniel and I might have come up with a way to meet both these >> requirements - a minimalist API for get_fields, with at least some >> protection aga

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 2:21 AM, Shai Berger wrote: > On Wednesday 20 August 2014 10:29:49 Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 20, 2014 11:19:33 AM UTC+3, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > > > > > > This yields the following formal API for _meta: > > > * get_fields(data, many_to_many,

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Anssi Kääriäinen
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 11:07 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > The point is that I am convinced we will need to provide field > flags to complement the get_fields() API no matter what API we > choose for get_fields(). In fact, if we define and document a > sane

Re: GSoC Meta refactor: Bikeshedding time!!

2014-08-20 Thread Anssi Kääriäinen
On Thu, 2014-08-21 at 11:07 +0800, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Sure - and the purpose of this thread is to tease out what those > "useful" flags are. At the moment, it's not clear to me where exactly > the conceptual holes lie from your perspective. As I said, the API > I've proposed here is s