Re: First time contribution, tests fails.

2011-09-28 Thread Sebastian Goll
On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 04:30:15 +0300 Yaşar Arabacı wrote: > I have accepted https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16519 . Before I > started doing something, I tried to run tests. I thought tests/runtests.py > would run all tests, but I am getting this error: > > permission_protected_view_exceptio

Re: First time contribution, tests fails.

2011-09-28 Thread Simon Charette
Hi Yasar! Are you sure you're at the latest trunk revision? (16911) I'm not getting any failures with this revision and the test_sqlite settings? http://dpaste.com/623028/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this dis

First time contribution, tests fails.

2011-09-28 Thread Yaşar Arabacı
Hi, I have accepted https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16519 . Before I started doing something, I tried to run tests. I thought tests/runtests.py would run all tests, but I am getting this error: permission_protected_view_exception = permission_required('modeltests.test_perm', raise_exception

Re: We're a group of students at UC Berkeley looking to contribute to Django

2011-09-28 Thread Sam Whitlock
I am in the same group as Jamin. Here is some more info about the class. Berkeley has these classes called DeCal classes. They are student-taught classes about all sorts of things (Starcraft to Wheelchair Basketball). More info at the official site . We are enrolled in th

Re: confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-28 Thread Daniel Moisset
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Paul McMillan wrote: > > Yes! Let's get rid of [the "accept" button]. It still confuses me now > even when I > > know exactly what it means! > > If anyone knows how to do this, let me know and I'll make i

Re: confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-28 Thread Jacob Kaplan-Moss
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Paul McMillan wrote: > Yes! Let's get rid of [the "accept" button]. It still confuses me now even > when I > know exactly what it means! If anyone knows how to do this, let me know and I'll make it happen. Jacob -- You received this message because you are sub

RE: [NoSQL] Sub-object queries / refactoring JOIN syntax into model fields

2011-09-28 Thread Kääriäinen Anssi
I think that lookup separator syntax is definitely the right approach here. The implementation should modify setup_joins. I think the cleanest approach would be to detect that the current lookup part leads to a field with subfields in either this part of the code: else:

jQuery.noConflict() vs. jQuery.noConflict(true)

2011-09-28 Thread Julien Phalip
Hi, During the recent DjangoCon sprints there have been some discussions between Jannis, Rob Hudson and I around a change which occurred in trunk a few months ago in r16415 [1]. This change specifically made the admin use jQuery.noConflict() instead of jQuery.noConflict(true) while namespacing its

Need help (testing/review) for patch

2011-09-28 Thread Stephan Jaensch
Hi everybody, I'm the author of the patch for bug 8660. [0] The patch adds user permission checking for admin inlines. Carljm has been very helpful at giving me pointers and reviewing the patch. But since he's very busy at the moment, it would be nice if someone else could try out the patch and

Re: [NoSQL] Sub-object queries / refactoring JOIN syntax into model fields

2011-09-28 Thread Jonas H.
On 09/28/2011 11:47 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote: On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:52:51 AM UTC+2, jo...@lophus.org wrote: What's the core team's opinion on this topic -- is there any chance to Secondly, how could this be implemented? Did you search the mailing list about this topic at a

Re: [NoSQL] Sub-object queries / refactoring JOIN syntax into model fields

2011-09-28 Thread Florian Apolloner
On Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:52:51 AM UTC+2, jo...@lophus.org wrote: > > What's the core team's opinion on this topic -- is there any chance to > > Secondly, how could this be implemented? > Did you search the mailing list about this topic at all yet? I am not sure, but I think Alex impl

Re: User.objects.active() support.

2011-09-28 Thread Tomasz Zielinski
I'm the author of #16611 ticket and after some consideration I also think that proxy models are the way to go for such customizations. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups

Re: prefetch_related - new feature suggestion

2011-09-28 Thread Luke Plant
On 28/09/11 00:07, Johannes Dollinger wrote: > > Am 27.09.2011 um 05:18 schrieb Luke Plant: > >> 1) could be done on a per-query basis and >> 2) didn't require changes to the code that would use the QuerySet >> objects i.e. fully API compatible. > > I don't believe (2) is an important requiremen