Hi all,
Time for the long promised phase 3 of the Django testing framework -
fixtures - to make an appearance. I've attached the changes as a
single patch to ticket #2333
(http://code.djangoproject.com/tickets/2333 )
The idea here is to exploit the serialization framework to provide a
mechanism
It doesn't look like anything is being done with it right now. I
believe the patch outlined in the code works but I haven't thoroughly
tested it.
I'd like to see it fixed too. If you need help, let me know.
-Chris
Phil Powell wrote:
> I'm just wondering if anyone is following up on this issue
On 12/18/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Honza Král wrote:
> > On 12/18/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Honza Král wrote:
> > > > On 12/17/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Feel free to take
> > > > > on any of the items mentioned in this
Honza Král wrote:
> On 12/18/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Honza Král wrote:
> > > On 12/17/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Feel free to take
> > > > on any of the items mentioned in this e-mail, as long as we've all
> > > > agreed on the right way to sol
Gary Wilson wrote:
> Some more suggestions based on things that I have experienced while
> recently making an application that required many forms based on
> models:
>
> - Ability to not display certain fields, mainly for when the value will
> be post-filled in the view (i.e. the owner of an obje
Some more suggestions based on things that I have experienced while
recently making an application that required many forms based on
models:
- Ability to not display certain fields, mainly for when the value will
be post-filled in the view (i.e. the owner of an object being set to
the logged in u
On 12/18/06, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Honza Král wrote:
> > On 12/17/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Feel free to take
> > > on any of the items mentioned in this e-mail, as long as we've all
> > > agreed on the right way to solve the problems. Rewriting the
>
Honza Král wrote:
> On 12/17/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Feel free to take
> > on any of the items mentioned in this e-mail, as long as we've all
> > agreed on the right way to solve the problems. Rewriting the
> > validators to Fields would be a much-welcomed contribution, t
Hi,
somehow I kept interest in this and found a better solution. Splitting
the whole text first into words is only the best way when the line width
is close to the average word length. In the more typical cases you have
multiple words per line, and then it's faster to process line by line by
look
On 12/17/06, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 12/16/06, Honza Král <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > there are a few things I would like to see in there (or where
> > appropriate) and don't know if somebody is already working on it (or
> > other things that would clash with this effor
On 12/17/06, Fernando Gutierrez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This also excludes the integer 0 that evaluates to False. That is a
> problem, some legacy databases use 0 as the first pk for some tables, in
> that case you can't modify the objects that have this primary key.
Ok; ticket #2160 is tw
On 12/17/06, Yasushi Masuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Dear django developers,
>
> I'd like to notify that I have triaged ticket #3118 created by
> mtsuyuki[at]gmail.com. The ticket is reporting errata in 'UPDATE/INSERT'
> section of DB-API document.
Thanks for the triage! I've committed your
Hi!
I see it very common and good to extend some base models by OneToOne
relations. So, for example, in my application I am using django
contrib.auth. All my users also have 'instituton' field. All works,
except
inline editition of code. Here is example:
--- Customer/models.
On 12/17/06, Ivan Sagalaev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > Yes, there should be a way to specify the widget for a field in the
> > model. The question is, should it be specified as a keyword argument
> > to the field declaration, or should it be passed in the "class Admin"
Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> Yes, there should be a way to specify the widget for a field in the
> model. The question is, should it be specified as a keyword argument
> to the field declaration, or should it be passed in the "class Admin"?
Would it be better to specify it as and additional parameter
15 matches
Mail list logo