On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 02:16 -0300, Leo Soto M. wrote:
[...]
> I spent around an hour digging in the history of that code, and come
> to the following reasoning: the problems were caused by two mismatches
> between what the backend expected and what it got:
>
> - After the get_db_prep_* refactorin
On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 2:02 AM, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 01:54 -0300, Leo Soto M. wrote:
> [...]
>> So I've uploaded a small patch on #10071[4] which does the
>> normalization to int instead of unicode. I tested it with sqlite
>> (which was the problematic backend) and
On Tue, 2009-01-20 at 01:54 -0300, Leo Soto M. wrote:
[...]
> So I've uploaded a small patch on #10071[4] which does the
> normalization to int instead of unicode. I tested it with sqlite
> (which was the problematic backend) and it doesn't break any test.
>
> Now, my questions are:
>
> - Is th
While resuming the Django/Jython work, I've been hit by a small
inconsistency on the types of lookup arguments, as received by DB
backends.
Basically, __year lookup arguments are converted to integers before
being passed to the backend, but for __month and __day it's unicode.
That's weird. And fo
On Jan 19, 1:43 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> one. Short version: when the form field validation would match what the
> model field is going to do anyway, don't do anything at the form level.
> The model field validation is about to be called anyway.
[snip]
> The solution here might not be to
Hello,
I'll try to sum up my main issues with Django, trying to add a Django
ROA/WOA/SOA/BuzzwordOA module which uses a custom backend in order to
access remote resources in a RESTful way. Basically, it calls URLs
instead of hitting database (a picture is worth a thousand words, look
at t
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 18:04, mrts wrote:
> As of now, I'll stop pursuing this further, but when I come back to
> this,
> would the approach outlined in http://dpaste.com/108140/ be
> acceptable?
>
> I.e. if
> 1) not specified explicitly (by the --multiprocessing option to test)
> 2) there's onl
On Monday 19 Jan 2009 6:52:15 pm Rajeev J Sebastian wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM, mrts wrote:
> > And now something completely different
> > ==
> >
> > "Every problem in computer science can be solved by
> > another level of indirection."
>
> - Dav
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 4:17 PM, mrts wrote:
> And now something completely different
> ==
>
> "Every problem in computer science can be solved by
> another level of indirection."
- David Wheeler
" ... except the problem of too many levels of indirection"
-
As I understand it, this is primarily about avoiding duplicate
validation of some pieces of data when it's not necessary, right? So
it's really only applicable to the ModelForm case?
This is a pretty good summary of the situation, although I suspect
there's a fairly easy solution at hand, which I
On Jan 18, 5:17 am, Malcolm Tredinnick
wrote:
> (b) Please do write it out and post it here so that we can have the
> discussion on the mailing list.
Let’s step back, distance ourselves from the current implementation
and look at how forms, models and modelforms should ideally
interact validatio
11 matches
Mail list logo
