On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote:
>> >
>> > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by
>> > default?
>>
>> Not sure. Is there any reason
On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 18:09 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by
> > default?
>
> Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be necessary or useful to
> prevent them from being
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by
> > default?
>
> Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be necessary or useful to
> prevent them from being
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote:
>
> Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by
> default?
Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be necessary or useful to
prevent them from being negative?
Ian
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~--
Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by
default?
When i tried to create manually primary key like that
id = models.PositiveIntegerField(primary_key=True)
it become as
`id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY,
so it's not AUTO_INCREMENT now.
--~--~-~-
On Nov 28 2008, 10:19 pm, Tai Lee wrote:
> I currently use my own versions of `send_mail` and `mail_*`, which
> hijack the recipients if DEBUG is True. The idea being that I don't
> want to send real emails to real recipients while developing,
> debugging and testing.
What about having the test
Dos posibilidades:
Existe un atributo que puedes definir en tus campos foreign key:
employee= models.ForeignKey(Employee, verbose_name =_('*
Employee'),related_name='employee_payroll', limit_choices_to =
{'is_employee': True})
En la anterior linea, lo que hago es filtrar solo los empleados activ
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
>
> Aquí está una lista para preguntas en español:
> http://groups.google.com/group/django-es
>
> Bueno,
> Jeremy
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Patrick Taylor
> wrote:
> >
> > Por favor, disculpame por mi Español, msmtotti.
> >
> > Es
ok Gracias
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-devel
Aquí está una lista para preguntas en español:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-es
Bueno,
Jeremy
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Patrick Taylor wrote:
>
> Por favor, disculpame por mi Español, msmtotti.
>
> Esta lista es dedicada a el developmento de Django mismo, la lista que
> tu quie
Por favor, disculpame por mi Español, msmtotti.
Esta lista es dedicada a el developmento de Django mismo, la lista que
tu quieres usar es Django-users donde te pueden ayudar con este tipo
de problemas.
On 12-Jan-09, at 4:04 PM, msmtotti wrote:
>
> Hola:
>
> Tengo una duda en mis models.py,
Hola:
Tengo una duda en mis models.py, tengo este codigo
**
class Script(models.Model):
"""Clase Script"""
nombre = models.CharField(max_length=30)
descripcion = models.CharField(max_length=200)
class GrupoPregunta(models.
One of the item on the list for 1.1 is "Run Django test cases inside a
transaction". The ticket for this is #8138:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8138
and previous list discussion can be found here:
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/49aa551ad41fb919/3d7
Hi there,
I first posted this to the user list but this now looks more and more
like a bug -- please correct me if I am wrong.
I am using a FileField to store user-uploaded files on the server. My
setup works with the development server but raises a
SuspiciousOperation error when I switch to apa
In light of the upcoming feature completion deadline for Django 1.1,
I'd like to take a few minutes to mention where the signed cookies
application stands right now and some of my thoughts about its
inclusion in django.contrib. The code itself is done. I made a few
minor updates to it last week to
On Jan 12, 3:45 pm, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss"
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> > the lines ofhttp://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> > into trunk ASAP
>
> #8138 is nearly done; th
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> into trunk ASAP, especially now that the dynamic workflow is really
> gaining ground (both aggregate
Honza Král wrote:
> use Field.creation_counter instead of self.__class__
Oh, yeah. Thank you, it works :-)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
You are using self.__class__ which is different for foo and bar
(BooleanField), buzz (IntegerField) etc.
use Field.creation_counter instead of self.__class__
Honza Král
E-Mail: honza.k...@gmail.com
ICQ#: 107471613
Phone: +420 606 678585
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jonas Haag wrote:
>
Alex Koshelev wrote:
> I can write a short overview:
>Each model field(or form field) is marked by special counter while
> model(or form) is loading. Then in metaclass fields are sorted by that
> counter.
>
> I've recently written the blog post about this staff but its in
> Russian language.
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Karen Tracey wrote:
> (There was a mini-sprint on Saturday? I missed the memo -- where are these
> things being announced or was this just impromptu?)
It was really just a handful of us in Lawrence getting together for
the afternoon; those who were in #django-de
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> into trunk ASAP
#8138 is nearly done; there are still a couple of tricky issues to
work out first. T
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:25 AM, James Bennett wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> > the lines of
> http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> > into trunk ASAP
>
> What if we pay
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote:
> What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in
> the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/
> into trunk ASAP
What if we pay attention to the work that's been done on that
recently, including du
A proper "agile" workflow for distributed collaboration on a largeish
chunk of functionality should be as follows:
Feature developer:
* implement tests for the features to be added
* commit locally
* implement the features
* commit locally
* run the test suite iteratively, fixing whatever the tes
25 matches
Mail list logo
