The docs say about Field.to_python():
"""
As a general rule, the method should deal gracefully with any of the
following arguments:
* An instance of the correct type (e.g., Hand in our ongoing
example).
* A string (e.g., from a deserializer).
* Whatever the database returns for the co
On Apr 15, 8:57 pm, Kevin Howerton wrote:
> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
> contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to
> your flawed architecture if I'm going
On Apr 15, 8:57 pm, Kevin Howerton wrote:
> The level of resistance I see to change or outsider code contribution
> is an enormous de-motivator for people (like me) to want to make any
> contributions in the first place. Why should I contribute a patch to
> your flawed architecture if I'm going
On Apr 17, 5:35 am, "Tom X. Tobin" wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
> wrote:
> > However, at this point, I would like to tell you a story about four
> > people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, Nobody.
>
> This is exactly why I try not to bitch too much about Dj
On Apr 17, 3:47 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> For the record, there are 62 tickets marked ready for checkin, not 400
> [1]. 29 of those are documentation and translation patches (5 of which
> are specifically marked for inclusion in 1.2).
>
> [1]http://code.djangoproject.com/query?status=new&s
Is this a bug or a feature ?
>>> from django.contrib.sessions.backends.db import SessionStore
>>> s = SessionStore(session_key='secret!!!11')
>>> s.session_key
'secret!!!1!1'
>>> 'foo' in s
False
>>> s.session_key
'7f9aa956cb169b1f89a3a5b384cafc1b'
George
--
You received this message because yo
On May 4, 11:05 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM, George Sakkis wrote:
> > Is this a bug or a feature ?
>
> Take a look at the source (django/contrib/sessions/backends/db.py;
> line 16 - the load() function). If the session key doesn't exist i
On May 5, 12:25 pm, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 10:24 AM, George Sakkis
> wrote:
> > On May 4, 11:05 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM, George Sakkis
> >> wrote:
> >> > Is this a bug or a featu
On May 5, 10:20 pm, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Wed, May 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM, George Sakkis wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > I'm repeating myself here but if the intention is to really disallow
> > user-provided ids. it can be done more clearly: raise an exception if
> >
Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why the lack of of
remove() and add() for ManyToManyFields with 'through' model is
necessary.
For remove, the docs say "The remove method is disabled for similar
reasons (to add)" but it's not clear why. All it is required for
"beatles.members.remove(joh
On Jun 11, 1:11 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 6:47 PM, George Sakkis
> wrote:
> > Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see why the lack of of
> > remove() and add() for ManyToManyFields with 'through' model is
> > ne
I'm wondering what was the rationale for introducing a new separate
signal for m2m relationships, as opposed to using the existing ones on
the intermediate ('through') model. Currently the situations is
confusing:
* For m2m fields with auto_created intermediate model, calling
``Model.m2m_field.add
On Jun 14, 3:38 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 9:18 PM, George Sakkis
> wrote:
> > I'm wondering what was the rationale for introducing a new separate
> > signal for m2m relationships, as opposed to using the existing ones on
> > the i
Apologies if this has come up before, I didn't find anything related
in the archives.
As Model.save() is called both for inserts and updates, it would
sometimes be useful for pre_save listeners to know whether the
instance exists or not. This information is sent with post_save but by
then it may b
On Jun 16, 4:51 am, Jeremy Dunck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:46 AM, George Sakkis
> wrote:
> > ...In the current save_base()
> > implementation, pre_save is sent before the instance's existence is
> > determined, so I'm not sure if postponing it would
On Jun 16, 4:22 pm, Peter Bengtsson wrote:
> I have a modelform where I change the cleaned_data dict after I have
> run is_valid() and I'm not sure if this is the totally wrong way of
> doing things or if it's a bug.
> My code broke when I upgraded to 1.2 so it did work back in the 1.1
> days.
>
On Jun 17, 11:39 am, Matt Hoskins wrote:
> My use case is that I want to have a BooleanField on the model and on
> the form want to have the choices of "Unknown", "Yes" and "No" in a
> select list and give a "this field is required" error if the user
> leaves it set to "Unknown" (i.e. require the
On Oct 1, 7:26 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
>
> I've just added a summary of the last thread on class-based views [1].
Thanks for writing this up. Having missed the discussion on that
thread, the summary saved me a whole lot of time.
> I'd like to try and get this in for 1.3. It's a big featur
On Oct 2, 6:46 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-02 at 09:20 -0700, George Sakkis wrote:
> > Having said that, I'm in favour of the first approach mentioned in the
> > wiki (store state on request) and I'm surprised it doesn't seem to
> > have any tracti
On Oct 3, 6:12 am, Ian Lewis wrote:
> Other frameworks seem have View/Handler instances per request, such as
> appengine's webapp so there is some precedent for creating an instance
> per request.
>
> http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/gettingstarted/handlingf...
>
> Flask seems to do i
On Oct 3, 4:20 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:01 PM, Carl Meyer wrote:
> >> We could even wrap the "no args to __init__" error check in a method
> >> that enables it to be overridden and silenced in a subclass; that way,
> >> introducing the potentially un-threadsafe be
On Oct 4, 7:22 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> > Given that the primary complain against the __new__ solution is that
> > it's unintuitive to Python programmers that instantiating their class
> > results in some other class, why not simply go
On Oct 4, 9:16 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 13:08 -0400, Alex Gaynor wrote:
> > Last idea, I swear,
>
> I didn't swear, so here is another slight variation :-) You actually
> *call* the classmethod in your URLconf, passing any constructor
> arguments to it:
>
> url(r'^detail/auth
On Oct 4, 10:55 pm, "David P. Novakovic"
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:21 AM, George Sakkis wrote:
>
> > Since dispatch is going to be defined on the base View class, can't we
> > omit it from the urlconf and have the URLresolver do:
>
> > if isinst
There are at least three open tickets related to OneToOneFields
(#10227, #14043, #14368) that, even if deemed invalid, hint at lack of
adequate documentation. After reading the docs on OneToOneField, I
don't think one can easily answer the following questions:
- It is mentioned that multi-table in
Thanks for the thorough reply, it was helpful, even without replying
directly to any of the specific questions about the leakiness of the
abstraction :-)
I'll try to come up with patches+tests for #14043 and #14368 since
they strike you as bugs. As for #10227, what do you think about my
suggestion
On Oct 8, 2:20 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> #14043 is clearly a bug to me (hence the accepted status). If I had to
> guess at a cause, I'd say it's either:
> * The OneToOneField special case not being handled by deletion traversal
> * The related object cache on the o2o field not being clea
On Oct 9, 5:41 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> > I'll try to come up with patches+tests for #14043 and #14368 since
> > they strike you as bugs. As for #10227, what do you think about my
> > suggestion at the end for a new optional 'related_default' parameter ?
>
> I'm not sold on related_defaul
On Oct 17, 5:58 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Justin Lilly
> > wrote:
> >> Because you asked, I think this sounds like a great idea.
>
> >> When you have decided you like the API for cre
This has been (rightly) marked as DDN, so I'm wondering if there are
any thoughts on it to move it forward, one way or another. Original
thread at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_frm/thread/3b5939ba089bce51/67892d99a9a6aff3.
George
--
You received this message because yo
On Oct 25, 4:28 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> > On 23/10/10 12:54, George Sakkis wrote:
>
> >> This has been (rightly) marked as DDN, so I'm wondering if there are
> >> any thoughts on it to move it fo
On Oct 30, 3:47 pm, Luke Plant wrote:
> On Sat, 2010-10-30 at 05:59 -0700, Alex wrote:
> > Hello,
>
> > Are there any plans to add CUBRID -http://www.cubrid.org/ad Django
> > backend?
>
> > Seems to be very optimized DB for web application (opensource with
> > internal support clastering, partitio
On Oct 9, 4:41 pm, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> However, any of these plans hinge on us determining the right behavior
> in the first place. Like I said last time -- I really need to hear
> other opinions on this.
Bumping this up (#10227). Btw the other two tickets (#14043, #14368)
are RFC; woul
On Nov 15, 6:31 am, Russell Keith-Magee
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Tai Lee wrote:
> > I like the idea of needmoreinfo as a resolution, which makes it clear
> > to the reporter that they need to take the next step to re-open the
> > ticket with more info. I don't think that closed
34 matches
Mail list logo
