Adrian,
My apologies, what I'm meaning is: on deletion of the restaurant,
rather than issuing a bulk SQL deletion of the Table instances, call
the delete method for each.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this grou
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Yo-Yo Ma wrote:
> My proposal is to add a new on_delete=models.SET-ish feature (or a new
> kwarg altogether) which would, when specified, cause the parent
> object's delete to loop through an iterator of the related instances
> and call the delete method on each fo
My "table" typo was intended to be the "restaurant" of a Table model
(it's late :)
--
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
It's quite a common practice to customize a model's delete method.
This normally leads to the recommended practice of "just loop through
instances and delete each in lieu of using QuerySet.delete". That
works well, within limited context. However, when you've got a model
that's high up in the food
On Nov 30, 2:26 pm, Kääriäinen Anssi wrote:
> I can think of two basic approaches to this: define a __setattr__ for Models,
> and check if the pk is set after fetch from DB. This has at least three
> problems:
> 1. It is likely that users have custom __setattr__ methods that do not use
> super().
Hi David,
Our CSRF protection is a bit different from that implemented by many
other frameworks. The recommendations we (wearing my OWASP hat) make
as OWASP tend to be conservative and lean towards "safe is better than
sorry." Security and pentest companies tend to make similar
recommendations bec
All,
A site I work on was penetration tested this week and several queries were
raised about the site's (and hence Django's) CSRF implementation. The
points seem valid to a degree but I wanted to check if there were design
decisions behind the current implementation.
Note, we're using Django 1.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Thibault,
Thanks for checking in on this ticket. It's helpful to get a clear
resolution rather than leaving things hanging in an unclear state.
On 12/01/2011 11:14 AM, Thibault Jouannic wrote:
> I'm looking for some news about the ticket #12635.
>
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 12:56 PM, Aljoša Mohorović
wrote:
> i can try working on docs, test stuff or any other task but i need
> some guidance and somebody to report to.
> would appreciate any help/directions
Hi Aljosa,
There may very well be tickets in our ticket system devoted to this,
so try t
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:14 AM, Thibault Jouannic wrote:
> Hi django devs,
>
> I'm looking for some news about the ticket #12635.
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12635
>
> Today, it's still impossible to easily access post data when sending a
> PUT request. Since I'm trying to build a
recently i'm having a lot of issues with forms, mostly when creating
custom widgets.
while trying to create custom widgets i've found myself repeatedly
reading forms/admin widgets source so i've figured i could try to get
involved to improve this issue.
is somebody working on widgets docs/guides/t
Hi django devs,
I'm looking for some news about the ticket #12635.
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12635
Today, it's still impossible to easily access post data when sending a
PUT request. Since I'm trying to build a restful web service using
django, this is quite a problem.
It's been tol
Settings pk as None is recommended method of model cloning, as per:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/queries/#copying-model-instances
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
h
On 30/11/11 21:19, Ian Clelland wrote:
> I would consider Django 1.4+ to fall under the "new programs" umbrella :)
Agreed. Thanks for all that research. Since we currently don't support
nullable PKs (implicit in our 'pk is None' idiom), there is no need to
do so going forward, and that allows a s
14 matches
Mail list logo
