I emailed Paulo off list, he was using Python 3.4 which Django 2.1 no
longer supports. pip could give a friendlier message when environment
markers don’t match but there are such versions on PyPI.
On Sun, 2 Sep 2018 at 08:22, Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> Hi Paulo
>
> It looks like there's something g
Cool. Thanks Adam!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post
Hi all,
Calendar Week 35 -- ending 31 August.
Triaged:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29723 -- Backwards-incompatible
change of has_add_permission in 2.1 (Accepted.)
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29714 -- Option to hide cookies in
error reports (Accepted.)
https://code.django
Scot,
This is nice, thank you for sharing. I think something like this + an up to
date black list should be good enough.
Mehmet
From: Scot Hacker
Sent: Saturday, September 1, 2018 8:38 PM
To: Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)
Subject: Re: New Password Validators
Rather than e
I have the following model
class Member(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, null=True, blank=True)
*Operation sequence*
m = Member.objects.get(id=4) # This objects has attached user
m.user # Print user objects successfully
m1 = Member.objects.get(id=4) # Fetch same object from d
Dear django-devs,
I've been reading a lot about the state of dumpdata and loaddata
commands in dango. The bug reports that I've found tend to focus
improvements to either cosmetic improvements or to a total rewrite of
the functionality and pointing discussions to this list.
I've pondered this for
On 02/09/18 17:58, Shivam Jindal wrote:
> I have the following model
>
> class Member(models.Model):
> user = models.OneToOneField(User, null=True, blank=True)
>
> *Operation sequence*
>
> m = Member.objects.get(id=4) # This objects has attached user
> m.user # Print user objects successfull
Hi Lan,
*m.user.refresh_from_db()* is sam as
*u = m.user*
*u.refresh_from_db()*
So If I am refreshing u, it should update all relationship and property of
*u*(including reverse relation). Should It not?
On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 12:24 AM, Ian Foote wrote:
> On 02/09/18 17:58, Shivam Jindal wrote
On 02/09/18 19:59, Shivam Jindal wrote:
> Hi Lan,
>
> *m.user.refresh_from_db()* is sam as
>
> *u = m.user*
> *u.refresh_from_db()*
>
> So If I am refreshing u, it should update all relationship and property
> of *u*(including reverse relation). Should It not?
>
Hi Shivam,
As far as I can te
Hi Simon,
Thanks for looking at this and for providing some context - I had looked at
FilteredRelation but I hadn't seen reverse-unique. It makes me more
confident that this is a good direction to take. I've reimplemented
ReverseUnique using Relationship [0] and the tests pass, with the only code
10 matches
Mail list logo
