Re: annoyance with Python 3.2 support in Django 1.8

Do we currently raise any warnings/exceptions in cases where Python support has / or is about to be dropped (particularly mid LTS).. As a suggestion, I was thinking it could be helpful to people affected we raised exception msg indicating the last Django version to support their current Python

Re: annoyance with Python 3.2 support in Django 1.8

Donald could probably provide more information, but this post from April shows the Python 3.2 numbers downloading from PyPI are constant, and pretty small [https://caremad.io/2015/04/a-year-of-pypi-downloads/] His take was that CI systems (like Django's!) were doing most of the Python 3.2 package d

Re: annoyance with Python 3.2 support in Django 1.8

I agree with Tim. Unless someone puts their hand up to say they definitely require python 3.2 support for 1.8, I think it makes sense to drop support in the next dot release of 1.8. 3.2 isn't an easy python to find in the wild as far as I know, so I'd be surprised if there was any real support

Re: worth adding PyPy to continuous integration?

Hey Tim, I think we should at least run the tests occasionally and see if they pass and if not see how much effort it takes to fix problems. Regarding the migration date issues, I fixed them in newer PyPy versions: https://bitbucket.org/pypy/pypy/issues/2062/inconsistency-in-__repr__-for-date-t

Re: Referrer Policy Delivery, Django shouldn't do strict referrer check anymore?

Florian, then Django will have to keep this limitation: can't use a global no-referrer policy on HTTPS because of strict referrer check. Correct? Should I create an issue to keep this logged? Em quinta-feira, 3 de dezembro de 2015 13:19:38 UTC-3, Florian Apolloner escreveu: > > > > On Wednesday

Re: Validation of m2m

Here's an open ticket about adding model level validation for many-to-many: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12938 On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 11:04:22 AM UTC-5, Federico Capoano wrote: > > Thanks Aymeric, > > I decided to post this problem on django-developers because I've read this >

Re: Referrer Policy Delivery, Django shouldn't do strict referrer check anymore?

On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 7:37:30 PM UTC+1, Flávio Junior wrote: > > If Django still needs > the strict > referrer check, maybe a better error message should be implemented. > I do not see any reason why it would not need it anymo

Re: Possible bug transaction rollback or SQLite backend

Hi Jonas, On 12/03/2015 07:02 AM, Jonas H wrote: > Hi there, > > there seems to be something wrong with either the SQLite backend, the > SQLite library itself or Django's transaction handling. Whenever I try > to run the test suite of a specific project of mine > (https://github.com/jonashaag/fah

Re: Validation of m2m

Thanks Aymeric, I decided to post this problem on django-developers because I've read this ticket: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24731 Sorry for omitting this information. Has there been a discussion about this topic already? Would it be hard to implement an easier solution into django?

Re: Possible bug transaction rollback or SQLite backend

Tim, thanks for the pointer. I'm not sure if my issue is related. I've found a minimal example for another (same?) issue: https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25860 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itsel

Re: annoyance with Python 3.2 support in Django 1.8

No, using pypy3 doesn't make things easier. There are a handful of test failures with pypy3 and it doesn't solve the issue that unittest-xml-reporting doesn't work with Python 3.2. Issues aside, the main thing I'm trying to find out is, are we providing any substantial value supporting Django o

Re: worth adding PyPy to continuous integration?

Yes, exactly Josh. I was hoping someone familiar with pypy could offer some insight. I think we can only add continuous integration support if at least a couple champion the effort and make themselves available to help with issues as they arise. As far as I know, we don't currently have this ex

Re: Possible bug transaction rollback or SQLite backend

Hi Jonas, I wonder if https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/24080 might be related. If you could distill the project you linked into a minimal example to reproduce that would be ideal. By the way, "is it a bug?" questions normally go to django-users. Tim On Thursday, December 3, 2015 at 9:02:54

Re: Referrer Policy Delivery, Django shouldn't do strict referrer check anymore?

That won't solve the problem. If you set policy to *No Referrer* and make a request to the same origin, Chrome sets Origin to "null", Firefox doesn't set the header and Safari sets the correct origin. Em quarta-feira, 2 de dezembro de 2015 16:01:51 UTC-3, Collin Anderson escreveu: > > Seems to

Possible bug transaction rollback or SQLite backend

Hi there, there seems to be something wrong with either the SQLite backend, the SQLite library itself or Django's transaction handling. Whenever I try to run the test suite of a specific project of mine (https://github.com/jonashaag/fahrtkostenrechner), using `fahrtkostenrechner/manage.py test

Re: Validation of m2m

Hello Frederico, It appears that you're hitting the problem described in the "Avoid catching exceptions inside atomic!" warning on this page: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/topics/db/transactions/#handling-exceptions-within-postgresql-transactions To obtain that sort of result, I suppose y

Validation of m2m

Hi everybody, I am sure it has happened to many of you. Validating m2m BEFORE saving the relationships is very hard and time consuming. Now this solution: http://schinckel.net/2012/02/06/pre-validating-many-to-many-fields./ Proposes to solve it with a ModelForm in the admin. Cool, that works.

Feedback about FormMixin get_context_data()

Hi all, Going through the process of scoping upgrading from 1.8 to 1.9 and after having hundreds of test cases failing with "TypeError: get_context_data() missing 1 required positional argument: 'form'" I would just like to make an observation. It seems like it is a good optimization - as disc

Re: is_authenticated as property

2015-12-03 7:02 GMT+01:00 Josh Smeaton : > I think we should be asking.. why not? If there's not a good reason not > to, let's make it a callable and a property. > The original discussion dates back to 2008; back then I believe we were slightly more resistant to change, especially when it came to