Seems to me it would be useful to work with some external projects (like
taggit) to convert their projects to use only public APIs -- otherwise we
are stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out theoretical use cases.
On Monday, February 2, 2015 at 5:41:06 AM UTC-5, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
I don't like the idea of extended usage of field.get_internal_type(). The
problem is that we haven't defined what the internal_type means, and it is
actually used for different meanings in different places of code currently.
As an example, AutoFields have internal type as AutoField. The AutoFiel
Thanks Markus for the detailed report.
On a conceptual level I think we should aim for:
- django.db.* only relies on get_internal_type().
- django.* only relies on field flags.
To address the immediate regressions I suggest we backport
https://github.com/django/django/pull/4002/files as far bac
Yes, it seems reasonable, because schema should deal with internal type and
not with
field flags such as field.many_to_many.
So, the summary is:
For 1.8:
https://github.com/django/django/pull/4014
Then
https://github.com/django/django/pull/3998 (for 1.7 and 1.8 and current
master)
For 1.9:
htt
Hey all,
Since Django 1.8 (currently in alpha state), model fields gained cardinality
flags as part of the _meta refactoring. So, there is one_to_one, one_to_many,
many_to_one and many_to_many. These flags are currently only used inside
user-facing APIs such as forms and the admin.
Furthermo
