Scanned all the 6000 tickets for "exception" and found it (#6094).
Didn't find that when I searched before creating the ticket.
--
Michael Manfre
On Dec 9, 11:22 pm, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Michael Manfre wrote:
> > If a middleware throws an exception, it is not po
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 11:21 PM, Michael Manfre wrote:
> If a middleware throws an exception, it is not possible to catch and
> handle that error. Instead it goes straight to the unhandled exception
> handler and prevents any process_exception middleware methods from
> acting on the exception. I i
If a middleware throws an exception, it is not possible to catch and
handle that error. Instead it goes straight to the unhandled exception
handler and prevents any process_exception middleware methods from
acting on the exception. I included a patch that shifts the
process_view processing down a l
The existing patch and tests are coded to behave like this so those should
be good. I added our discussion to the ticket for historical purposes. I
don't have to do anything more from here on so I will wait for the final
decision.
Thanks,
Farhan
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 4:41 AM, Russell Keith-Mag
I think ticket #399 could make it into 1.2, but there's a -1 vote (from
James) to overcome first: Patch on the ticket (which is over a year old)
indicates how easy this is to do yourself if you need it.
The patch is no longer a year old, it's been updated a few times recently,
fixing tests to get
Sean,
That's great stuff; exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for the
pointer!
/Martin
On Dec 9, 12:40 pm, Sean Brant wrote:
> This might help you
> outhttp://ericholscher.com/projects/django-test-utils/keep_database_runn
> Or at least give you some pointers.
>
> - Sean
>
> On Wed, Dec
This might help you out
http://ericholscher.com/projects/django-test-utils/keep_database_runner.html.
Or at least give you some pointers.
- Sean
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Martin Omander wrote:
> Russ,
>
> The method you describe sounds like the preferred way. It's cleaner to
> add a new te
Russ,
The method you describe sounds like the preferred way. It's cleaner to
add a new test runner module than to modify existing Django code. I
really like it.
But as you say, it's not obvious how to do this. I'd like to do a
write-up of how this is done, for the common use case where you don't
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:52 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> 4. I share Mike's concern about using settings.SITE_ID to determine
> the current host, but I'm not sure I have any suggestions on how we
> could practically use request, short of encouraging the use of a
> template tag like {% obj_url
On Dec 9, 11:32 am, reg...@messir.net wrote:
> As I understood logging support for django is complete now. Or not?
Not as far as I'm aware. Simon Willison has some experimental code on
GitHub AFAIK, and there's ticket 12012 tracking that implementation.
Regards,
Vinay Sajip
--
You received t
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 5:15 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> There's overlap, but it isn't necessarily a perfect match.
Good points -- you've clearly thought this through farther than me.
Consider the wrench withdrawn :)
If you need another set of eyes on the code, I'm happy to give it a
review
Okay, I've not heard any voices requesting that we push the release.
So we're still on the same schedule. Let's do it!
Jacob
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-develop...@googlegroup
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 4:59 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Additionally, a few features are in or close to last-call stage
> (multidb and the smarter if tag).
You can add the messages framework to the list of features that will
be in Real Soon.
Cheers,
Tobias
--
Tobias McNulty
Caktus Consulting
On Wednesday 09 December 2009 12:43:04 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> I've done another review, and it's looking pretty good. I have
> three relatively minor comments:
>
> * There is what appears to be vestigial documentation around line
> 346 of ref/templates/builtins.txt; it says evaluation or
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:17 PM, Mario Briggs wrote:
> I was too harsh on the GenericKeyField. How about GenericKeyField
> (length=x). I think the reason i put length in there is obvious, but i
> can explain if need be.
Well, you may have to, because the reason that it doesn't need a
length is als
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM, wrote:
>> Django allows you to define a custom test runner. Copy
>> django.tests.simple.run_tests() into your own code, removing the calls
>> to create and destroy the test database. Then set TEST_RUNNER in your
>> settings file to point at the new runner.
> Hello!
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:22 PM, wrote:
>> Django allows you to define a custom test runner. Copy
>> django.tests.simple.run_tests() into your own code, removing the calls
>> to create and destroy the test database. Then set TEST_RUNNER in your
>> settings file to point at the new runner.
> Hello!
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Luke Plant wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've now addressed everything in Russell's last e-mail, I think, so I
> think I'm pretty much good to go, apart from:
>
> 1) my last change rewrote a lot of IfParser, which was the heart of
> the patch. That means it probably needs lo
I was too harsh on the GenericKeyField. How about GenericKeyField
(length=x). I think the reason i put length in there is obvious, but i
can explain if need be.
In post #14 on this thread you suggested - " I'm not wild about the
idea of having underlying datatypes change based on attributes in a
f
> So the question is: given what we've got done, and guess at what we
> will get done, is the current timeline still feasible, or should we
> push the timeline?
As I understood logging support for django is complete now. Or not?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Goog
> Django allows you to define a custom test runner. Copy
> django.tests.simple.run_tests() into your own code, removing the calls
> to create and destroy the test database. Then set TEST_RUNNER in your
> settings file to point at the new runner.
Hello!
I see many similar bugreports and wishes which
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:45 PM, Jonas Obrist wrote:
> Hi django-developers!
>
> I have two things which bug me about custom 404's.
>
> First:
>
> Why isn't there a setting to define a custom 404 template? In Python one
> of the principles is "explicit is better than implicit", a file put in a
> di
Hi django-developers!
I have two things which bug me about custom 404's.
First:
Why isn't there a setting to define a custom 404 template? In Python one
of the principles is "explicit is better than implicit", a file put in a
directory looks rather implicit to me, a setting defining the name o
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:18 AM, thebitguru wrote:
> OK, here is what I have gathered about the databases listed under
> DATABASE_ENGINE [4].
>
> Postgresql 8: Supports all three, +/-Inf and NaN [0]
> MySQL: No support for either NaN or Inf [1]
> sqlite3: No support for either NaN or Inf [2]
> Ora
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 8:53 AM, Martin Omander wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> How about letting Django users run unit tests without creating a new
> test database?
>
> To use Django's built-in unit test harness, you have to have database
> creation privileges. Not all web hosts give users those privileges.
25 matches
Mail list logo
