On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 3:08:33 PM UTC+1, Vlastimil Zíma wrote:
>
> but to respect namespace if a ROOT_URLCONF has one.
>
I understood it like that; but as I said I didn't see many valid usecases.
Your point about testing though is a good one!
--
You received this message because you
Feel free to reopen the ticket if you want to provide a patch.
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 9:08:33 AM UTC-5, Vlastimil Zíma wrote:
>
> Based on the discussions I've seen, it looks like the problem is not
> looked at from the correct angle. The request is not to namespace the
> ROOT_URLCONF,
Based on the discussions I've seen, it looks like the problem is not looked
at from the correct angle. The request is not to namespace the
ROOT_URLCONF, but to respect namespace if a ROOT_URLCONF has one. The use
case is to prevent creation of one extra file, just to include the only
applicatio
The issue was raised some months ago in
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/28413 and came to a similar
conclusion. The resolution was to document the restriction.
On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 10:57:54 AM UTC-5, Florian Apolloner
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:40:
Hi,
On Thursday, February 15, 2018 at 2:40:07 PM UTC+1, Vlastimil Zíma wrote:
> Is there a reason not to use namespace from root urlconf? Can we change
> that, i.e. make root resolver to load the app_name of the root urls? Did I
> missed something else?
>
I don't think there is any reason to n
Hi,
I've tried to understand how to write an urls module for reusable app and I
think I have it correctly:
# myapp.urls
app_name = 'myapp'
urlpatterns = [
url(r'^index/$', MyIndexView.as_view(), name='index'),
url(r'^form/$', MyFormView.as_view(), name='form'),
...
]
In code I use
