Just to clarify this point, which I think has been glossed over:
> But unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the bug, this seems like it
basically makes async views un-testable ...
This isn't correct.
Under normal circumstances you just use the sync Client, as you've always
done. `response =
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:24 PM Tim Graham wrote:
> As perfectionists, it's always hard to say (and hear) "no" when this sort of
> request comes up.
I wrote a 2,000-word argument explaining why I believe this warrants
backporting. I think that deserves more engagement than just a "no".
> I'm un
I'll say upfront that I haven't hit this particular issue, but it's mostly
because I've avoided the Django async stack after some challenging
experiences on the old(er) channels/daphne/etc. stack and its evolution.
I've personally been in the "let's see how this develops" camp, which
admittedly
As perfectionists, it's always hard to say (and hear) "no" when this sort
of request comes up. I'm unconvinced it's a serious issue that requires a
break from normal policy. (Unreported for 2 years in 4 major releases;
simple workaround present.)
Incidentally, escalating an issue to the steerin
I have put it to the Steering Council:
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/request-for-technical-board-steering-council-vote-requested-backport-ticket-34063/17920/1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" g
> Even if it will not be fixed for older versions, Django 4.1 ought to be
eligible for a backport.
What you're suggesting is a change to the backport policy. That may be the
right thing to do, but it would be quite a significant change.
These issues — where a bug report/fix comes outside the backp
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:04 AM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> No it's not. It's a bug in AsyncClient and AsyncRequestFactory, that means
> if you're using those on older versions of Django, you'll need to work
> around.
> This is no different than any of a thousand other cases where there's been
> a bu
James,
I think the backport policy has proven itself over the years, no?
"Django lied" — that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?.
Django introduced a new feature, as it is wont to do.
There was a bug in that new feature, as there are wont to be.
Unfortunately that bug was not discovered during
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 1:27 AM Carlton Gibson wrote:
> It's frustrating when this happens, but the backport policy has proven its
> worth time and again.
> I **really** don't see the case for making an exception here.
> (The policy has more value than the inconvenience in any of these cases, or
OK, yes, that's probably right.
Had #34063 been reported during the 3.1 cycle it would have been a release
blocker.
As it was, it wasn't reported until 4.0 (when main was already 4.1) so two
cycles later.
As such it no longer qualifies for a backport.
It's frustrating when this happens, but the b
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 1:09 AM Carlton Gibson wrote:
> All you're talking about is adding this to your test cases right?
>
> # Work around Django #34063 until 4.2.
> request.body
As far as I can tell it needs to go in whatever code will *read*
request.POST, not the code that generates the reques
James,
All you're talking about is adding this to your test cases right?
# Work around Django #34063 until 4.2.
request.body
# ... continue
C.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 10:04, James Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:01 AM Carlton Gibson
> wrote:
> > When I looked at the trace you po
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:01 AM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> When I looked at the trace you posted in IRC yesterday, my first thought was
> "3.2?". I think supporting Django 3.2 at this point isn't worth the effort.
It's also broken in 4.0 and 4.1. I just posted the first trace I got
back from my te
Hey James.
Grrr. 😬
I don't think this justifies an exception to the backport policy. It's not
significantly different from any of any number of other fixes that folks
ask for a backport for and we say no. Fielding "but you backported that
one" isn't an extra task that's going to be helpful.
When
14 matches
Mail list logo
