Re: Worth raising a warning when `order_by('?')` is used with specific backends?

2020-01-10 Thread Santiago Basulto
ld be rude to developers who want to use that > feature and are aware of the limitation... they would have to do extra work > to silence the warning. > > On Friday, January 10, 2020 at 10:14:23 AM UTC-5, Santiago Basulto wrote: >> >> Sadly I have to admit that I'm not involved

Worth raising a warning when `order_by('?')` is used with specific backends?

2020-01-10 Thread Santiago Basulto
Sadly I have to admit that I'm not involved with day to day development of our app anymore (I miss it tremendously). Yesterday I felt nostalgic and reviewed a few already-merged PRs, just "for fun" we could say. Great was my surprise when I noticed that one of those PRs was merged with an `orde

Re: [Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-19 Thread Santiago Basulto
C-3, Carlton Gibson wrote: > > > > On 18 Jan 2019, at 17:20, Santiago Basulto > wrote: > > Seems like everybody agrees that for large sites, it's necessary. > > > Hang on, slow down. 🙂 > > Personally, I’m not sure it’s too onerous as-is. I’ve not yet seen

Re: [Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-18 Thread Santiago Basulto
for users rather than >> just dumping the code to the docs. But I guess the issue is a slippery >> slope - how many subclasses do we add for various ModelAdmin use cases. >> It's definitely an issue that bites many people, and I'd like to see some >> way forward. &g

Re: [Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-17 Thread Santiago Basulto
be valuable, at least for me as a user. What do you think? On Thursday, January 17, 2019 at 11:27:12 AM UTC-5, Santiago Basulto wrote: > > I think the proposed solution of "you can just extend/subclass ModelAdmin" > doesn't work, because the fields on different models

Re: [Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-17 Thread Santiago Basulto
I think the proposed solution of "you can just extend/subclass ModelAdmin" doesn't work, because the fields on different models can have different names. I can't just write one global ModelAdmin and then use it for all my models, because they'll have different names for their fields. Or if it w

Re: [Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-16 Thread Santiago Basulto
Btw, for reference, not the only one with this problem: * https://twitter.com/mbrochh/status/1049209871583797248 * https://twitter.com/poswald/status/1072134086041300992 On Wednesday, January 16, 2019 at 5:02:57 PM UTC-5, Santiago Basulto wrote: > > Hey folks, I was about to submit a tick

[Looking for feedback] Make Admin raw_id_fields the default choice for FKs, or project-wide configurable

2019-01-16 Thread Santiago Basulto
Hey folks, I was about to submit a ticket but i thought it might be better to ask everybody for opinions on the matter first. I am running a couple of medium (not even large) Django websites (around +20K users) and we rely on the admin heavily. We have multiple models pointing to Users (or other

Re: Confusion with Unicode

2012-11-27 Thread Santiago Basulto
guys. You rock. On Saturday, November 24, 2012 8:58:00 PM UTC-3, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > > > On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Santiago Basulto > > > wrote: > >> Hey guys, i'm posting this here because I posted this on django-users >> yesterday and

Confusion with Unicode

2012-11-24 Thread Santiago Basulto
atically being encoded based on the Encoding of the request? Or I should take care of it explicitly? Thank you. -- Santiago Basulto.- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To view this discussion on the web visit http