Hey James.
Grrr. 😬
I don't think this justifies an exception to the backport policy. It's not
significantly different from any of any number of other fixes that folks
ask for a backport for and we say no. Fielding "but you backported that
one" isn't an extra task that's going to be helpful.
When
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:01 AM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> When I looked at the trace you posted in IRC yesterday, my first thought was
> "3.2?". I think supporting Django 3.2 at this point isn't worth the effort.
It's also broken in 4.0 and 4.1. I just posted the first trace I got
back from my te
James,
All you're talking about is adding this to your test cases right?
# Work around Django #34063 until 4.2.
request.body
# ... continue
C.
On Fri, 30 Dec 2022 at 10:04, James Bennett wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 12:01 AM Carlton Gibson
> wrote:
> > When I looked at the trace you po
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 1:09 AM Carlton Gibson wrote:
> All you're talking about is adding this to your test cases right?
>
> # Work around Django #34063 until 4.2.
> request.body
As far as I can tell it needs to go in whatever code will *read*
request.POST, not the code that generates the reques
OK, yes, that's probably right.
Had #34063 been reported during the 3.1 cycle it would have been a release
blocker.
As it was, it wasn't reported until 4.0 (when main was already 4.1) so two
cycles later.
As such it no longer qualifies for a backport.
It's frustrating when this happens, but the b
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 1:27 AM Carlton Gibson wrote:
> It's frustrating when this happens, but the backport policy has proven its
> worth time and again.
> I **really** don't see the case for making an exception here.
> (The policy has more value than the inconvenience in any of these cases, or
James,
I think the backport policy has proven itself over the years, no?
"Django lied" — that's a bit melodramatic don't you think?.
Django introduced a new feature, as it is wont to do.
There was a bug in that new feature, as there are wont to be.
Unfortunately that bug was not discovered during
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:04 AM Carlton Gibson
wrote:
> No it's not. It's a bug in AsyncClient and AsyncRequestFactory, that means
> if you're using those on older versions of Django, you'll need to work
> around.
> This is no different than any of a thousand other cases where there's been
> a bu
> Even if it will not be fixed for older versions, Django 4.1 ought to be
eligible for a backport.
What you're suggesting is a change to the backport policy. That may be the
right thing to do, but it would be quite a significant change.
These issues — where a bug report/fix comes outside the backp
I have put it to the Steering Council:
https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/request-for-technical-board-steering-council-vote-requested-backport-ticket-34063/17920/1
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" g
As perfectionists, it's always hard to say (and hear) "no" when this sort
of request comes up. I'm unconvinced it's a serious issue that requires a
break from normal policy. (Unreported for 2 years in 4 major releases;
simple workaround present.)
Incidentally, escalating an issue to the steerin
I'll say upfront that I haven't hit this particular issue, but it's mostly
because I've avoided the Django async stack after some challenging
experiences on the old(er) channels/daphne/etc. stack and its evolution.
I've personally been in the "let's see how this develops" camp, which
admittedly
On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:24 PM Tim Graham wrote:
> As perfectionists, it's always hard to say (and hear) "no" when this sort of
> request comes up.
I wrote a 2,000-word argument explaining why I believe this warrants
backporting. I think that deserves more engagement than just a "no".
> I'm un
Just to clarify this point, which I think has been glossed over:
> But unless I'm misunderstanding the nature of the bug, this seems like it
basically makes async views un-testable ...
This isn't correct.
Under normal circumstances you just use the sync Client, as you've always
done. `response =
14 matches
Mail list logo
