Michael Radziej wrote:
>
> What about
> SELECT ... FOR UPDATE
> )
Michael, I know you're already aware of this (heck, you're CCed on the
ticket), but for others...
I created a patch in ticket http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/2705
to allow a .for_update() modifier to be applied to a QuerySet
Hi all,
I'm wondering if there's a way to generate more compact queries in the
DB layer.
For example, when I have a model:
===
class Object(models.Model):
bar = models.ForeignKey(...)
foo = models.CharField(...)
something = models.DateTimeField(...)
===
Objec
Awesome! Thanks Will :-)
Seeing the diff you made makes it a lot easier to learn how to make my
own tests.
Also, thanks for performing the diff from the root this time. My
mistake in issuing it from within the tree.
Thanks again,
--Ben
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You
I don't know how I missed that... still that's more a django-users
guide from what I can discern... write tests for your own applications.
It doesn't explain how the django-developers have constructed their
test suites, and how one can build upon them.
Nonetheless, having this doc helps and I'll
> So - if you want your patches taken seriously, treat them seriously -
> don't just write them, test them too (and not just a token test either
> - REALLY test them). Especially when the testing framework is already
> in place for something like template tags.
I don't dispute the concept here, bu
> So - if you want your patches taken seriously, treat them seriously -
> don't just write them, test them too (and not just a token test either
> - REALLY test them). Especially when the testing framework is already
> in place for something like template tags.
I don't dispute the concept here, bu
> Some tests for
> your patch wouldn't go amiss, though I realise it's a pain writing
> tests for code when you don't know if it's going to be used.
Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to find the time to write
tests.
Realistically, no external functionality should be impacted. Because
the
Normally I wouldn't post here since I just posted to the ticket, but
since it's marked "closed" I didn't want it to be lost in the ether.
I've added a patch for ticket #648 and recommend reconsidering the
validity of the original point... Personally, I think that it would be
great to have {# comm
