On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 6:57 PM, Michael Hrivnak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That is neither a direct nor indirect replacement for model-level validation.
> Many applications receive input from sources other than forms. Validation at
> the form and model level are both valuable, but for differen
http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/0.96/pagination/
Giving 404. Known issue or I should file a bug?
--
Amit Upadhyay
Vakow! www.vakow.com
+91-9820-295-512
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"D
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:58 AM, Amit Upadhyay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Giving 404. Known issue or I should file a bug?
Due to limitations of the old docs system, there are quite a few such
links (typically due to documentation which existed in one release but
not in another). There's no need
I'm quite new to django, so I'm not sure where to put that patch. I
tried it in settings.py and urls.py but it didn't affect anything.
Where's the correct place to put it?
Thanks
On Aug 15, 1:14 am, Julien Phalip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> So far I haven't had too much trouble customi
Is seems that request_started & request_finished are used by the db to
manage connections, so I would expect it to work as defined.
I have some code for processing the urlsconf so signals seems like the
obvious tool. Apparently there is on server_started signal firing when
configuration is comple
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 8:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have some code for processing the urlsconf so signals seems like the
> obvious tool. Apparently there is on server_started signal firing when
> configuration is complete(that would be a very nice signal to get into
>
Thanks for the reply.
You are of course right. I should just do my processing of urlconf
whenever
when it is needed, and leave caching to some future optimisation.
Even so; Given your definition of the signal, how come the BUILD_RULES
is
output after the request log line, is that just a property
On Sun, Aug 24, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quick note: Malcolm and I are in Portland in the only place in the
> city sans wifi. We've talked about this and the other exc swallowing
> issue and I have some thoughts. Please hold until I'm in a more
> civilize
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 3:38 PM, Karen Tracey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So it's a couple of days later...got time to update with your thoughts?
Yeah, I'm sorry; I lost track of this.
Essentially I think that James is right that a systematic fix would be
better, but I don't see what that might
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So I think we need to do something along the lines of what's in
> #7524... it's far, far from perfect, but it's probably the only way to
> go to avoid a lot of frustration.
>
>
So should #7524 get moved back to a 1.0
Please ask usage questions on django-users, not here. This list is for
discussion of developing Django itself, not using it.
Karen
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post t
contrib.auth view tests fail if required templates aren't found. This
seems a sensible default in line with Russell's post [1] but rev 8497
introduces a test only template directory [2] which
a) causes the tests to pass in the absence of an actual login template
(the provided template is not a d
On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 18:09 -0700, Cam MacRae wrote:
> contrib.auth view tests fail if required templates aren't found. This
> seems a sensible default in line with Russell's post [1]
The problem with that original position is that it overloads testing to
include both testing the auth app's impl
On Aug 27, 11:20 am, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I much prefer self-contained unittests. I read Russell's mail as
> preferring to trade that for installation/configuration testing. I don't
> particularly agree with that, but I could live with it if we decide it's
> the way we
On Aug 26, 6:51 pm, Cam MacRae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rather than test specific templates, why not provide a set of default
> app templates? By doing so, the app is self contained, anyone not
> using the views can forget the tests, anyone who is using them has the
> freedom to use their own
On Aug 27, 1:42 pm, Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use
> contrib.auth without requiring passwords which invalidates a ton of
> urls hooked into contrib.auth.urls - this means that all the tests
> fail.
In this case they'd fail irrespective of the templates, no?
> I would defi
On Aug 27, 1:42 pm, Michael Richardson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I use
> contrib.auth without requiring passwords which invalidates a ton of
> urls hooked into contrib.auth.urls - this means that all the tests
> fail.
In this case they'd fail irrespective of the templates, no?
> I would defi
17 matches
Mail list logo
