Details are available on the Django project weblog:
https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2020/aug/04/django-31-released/
--
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 s
(initially posted to
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/fk-field-caching-behavior-change-between-1-11-x-and-2-x/3151
on 26 June but this mailing list might be more appropriate)
Hi
Whilst upgrading a codebase from 1.11.x to 2.0/2.2 I noticed a weird change
in behavior of FK fields when copying
Hello Gert, that seems a bit surprising to me and was likely not a desired
change.
Could you bisect the exact commit that caused the regression[0]? That would
certainly help determining the action to take here.
Thanks,
Simon
[0]
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.1/internals/contributing/tri
Hi Simon,
I think the commit is bfb746f983aa741afa3709794e70f1e0ab6040b5 "Refs #16043
-- Refactored internal fields value cache".
Cheers
On Tue, 4 Aug 2020 at 15:52, charettes wrote:
> Hello Gert, that seems a bit surprising to me and was likely not a desired
> change.
>
> Could you bisect the
Hey guys.
I'm developing a new project and creating a custom user model, extending
the AbstractBaseUser class, but when add a new user in admin interface or
modelform I get the error: IntegrityError at /null value in column "email"
violates not-null constraint.
The field email is necessary and
It was likely overlooked by the patch.
Looks like Model.__copy__ should make sure to make a deep-copy of
self._state now that fields are cached in self._state.fields_cache.
Using copy.deepcopy will circumvent the issue but I feel like copy.copy is
common enough pattern that we should maintain c
I reckon stick with your first instinct SImon.
I don't think using copy.copy needs to be an explicitly documented pattern.
It's a heavily-used part of the standard library, and the objects Django
provides should work with it as well as they can. The behaviour is
surprising and buggy at face value:
