Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Shai Berger
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT) charettes wrote: > I think deleted_selected is *special* since it's the only default > action provided. > I agree, but... > I guess we could document that a method name string reference should > be passed to AdminSite.add_action if it's meant to be over

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread charettes
I think deleted_selected is *special* since it's the only default action provided. I guess we could document that a method name string reference should be passed to AdminSite.add_action if it's meant to be overridden. Simon Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 13:04:35 UTC-4, Carlton Gibson a écrit : > >

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Carlton Gibson
OK, thanks both. Seems reasonable. Let me have a look at it in the morning. One question is whether we handle this for just delete_selected or any action which an AdminSite declares. The example from #30311 was `expect_inquisition` (Nice) Do we want to handle that too? 🤔 Cheers. C. On Wedn

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Shai Berger
(sorry about the previous empty mail, UI glitch) On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT) charettes wrote: > Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind > > https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45 > Yes, that would do what I want and seems better than my

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Shai Berger
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT) charettes wrote: > Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind > > https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45 > > Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 12:20:54 UTC-4, charettes a écrit : > > > > Given the common need to override d

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Shai Berger
Hi Carlton, On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:11:49 +0100 Carlton Gibson wrote: > I triaged that, and was involved in the change in #29917 that led to > your issue. > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29917 > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/-OWoYL_zryM/discussion > Yes, I've se

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread charettes
Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45 Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 12:20:54 UTC-4, charettes a écrit : > > Given the common need to override delete_selected I wonder if we could > define it as ModelAdmin method and

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread charettes
Given the common need to override delete_selected I wonder if we could define it as ModelAdmin method and use a .actions string reference to it in the AdminSite instead[0]. That would allow admin classes to simply override the delete_selected method on their admin classes without having to reso

Re: Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Carlton Gibson
Hi Shai. I triaged that, and was involved in the change in #29917 that led to your issue. https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29917 The proposal to change it was made on the list here: https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/-OWoYL_zryM/discussion I’ll have another review of it,

Request to reconsider #30311 -- allow overriding site-wide admin actions

2020-03-18 Thread Shai Berger
Hello fellow Djangonauts, While working on upgrading a project to 2.2, I ran into multiple instances of : (admin.E130) __name__ attributes of actions defined in must be unique. caused by the fact that, out of a large set of Admin classes, about a dozen have defined their own ve

Re: Support for MongoDB

2020-03-18 Thread sachin thakur
Hi Everyone, I was working on a project where I required multiple database configuration to my Django based application and this had created a problem from which DB we should manage the user and i could not find anything related to it. If we can contribute in this domain as would be highly apprecia

Re: Support for MongoDB

2020-03-18 Thread Fran Hrženjak
I think this might be the discussion which Aymeric referenced: https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer#!searchin/django-developers/Mongo$20orm/django-developers/N6WOdGGfmWk It certainly looks like the idea won’t be easily accepted. Unless something has changed in th

Re: Support for MongoDB

2020-03-18 Thread Dhruv Agarwal
I totally agree with you, Django is the best tech in the market and having native support of MongoDB or NoSQL can definitely help the industry to choose Django as there preferable tech stack. Also, it will allow me greater flexibility for developers. On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 10:52 AM Sanskar Jaiswal

Re: Support for MongoDB

2020-03-18 Thread Aymeric Augustin
Hello Sanskar, You can find discussions about this issue in archives of this mailing list. I don't think it came up recently; you'll have to go a few years back. Support for MongoDB would mean support in the ORM. The R in ORM stands for Relational. MongoDB isn't a relational database. Therefore