Hi Matt,
But I'm interested to know if others run into similar problems and how you
> solve them.
>
We hit the same problem and used a similar tearDownClass solution
http://chrisbailey.blogs.ilrt.org/2013/05/19/pythons-leaky-testcase-aka-hidden-gotchas-using-self/
Chris.
--
You received this
Hey Shai -
I have no objections to this change. I think it's got a slight whiff of
security theatre, in that it *looks* like it adds more protection than it
*actually* does. However, I, too, have spent a ton of time talking auditors
down from "OMG Django is vulnerable to CSRF!" and I'd like to do
I agree with Jacob on both points.
+1 from me, especially since neither of these changes should require
changes in application code which is already using the interface
correctly.
-Paul
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Hey Shai -
>
> I have no objections to this chang
In this support ticket (https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13089), the
original closer said "This is a long-standing explicit design decision in
the ORM, and so gets a wontfix...". What is the reasoning behind this? Why
is negative indexing of querysets disallowed?
Thanks!
--
You received
Hi Mark,
How do you think such support would look like? For negative indices you'd
have to know the size of the resultset to be able to do "limit somthing
offset length-your_negative_index" -- this doesn't seem to make any sense
for an ORM. You can always do list(qs)]:-1] though…
Cheers,
Flori
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> You can always do list(qs)]:-1] though…
Although you really shouldn't [1].
As for the reasons for disallowing negative indexes, dcramer's comment in
the ticket makes it clear: there is no way to infer what the last item in a
query woul
On Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:34:18 PM UTC+2, Andre Terra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Florian Apolloner
>
> > wrote:
>
>> You can always do list(qs)]:-1] though…
>
>
> Although you really shouldn't [1].
Right, it depends on your usecase; I was just trying to point out other
alte
On 30 Jul 2013, at 2:06 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> How do you think such support would look like? For negative indices you'd
> have to know the size of the resultset to be able to do "limit somthing
> offset length-your_negative_index" -- this doesn't seem to make any sense for
> an ORM. Yo
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Right, it depends on your usecase; I was just trying to point out other
> alternatives aside from the ones mentioned on the ticket.
I'm sorry if I seemed arrogant in my post. I most definitely did not intend
it, as I was absolutely sure
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 1:03:31 AM UTC+2, Andre Terra wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Florian Apolloner
>
> > wrote:
>
>> Right, it depends on your usecase; I was just trying to point out other
>> alternatives aside from the ones mentioned on the ticket.
>
>
> I'm sorry if I se
Hi Wim,
On Wednesday, July 31, 2013 12:04:42 AM UTC+2, Wim Lewis wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 2013, at 2:06 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> > How do you think such support would look like? For negative indices
> you'd have to know the size of the resultset to be able to do "limit
> somthing offset lengt
11 matches
Mail list logo
