On 8 jan, 10:03, James Bennett wrote:
> Suppose I have a ModelForm and call save(commit=False) to get the
> instance so I can do some more work on it. I'm basically saying to
> Django "I don't think this object is ready to be saved yet, but I need
> the object so I can do stuff to it". If Djang
I am also new at django.
In my opinion the basic problem of 2522 is that the related object is
referenced by the objects name instead of the related name. As a result
two foreign keys to the same object get the same name.
This reference is spread throughout related.py and other modules (like
get_f
Isn't it useful to allow two-step validation in general: one by the
form and one by the model when saving (both optional of course). This
would allow to add constraints to a form that are not needed by the
model in general (interesting when using different forms on the same
model eg for different
Hi all,
this could very well be one of those "don't do that" things, but here is my
problem.
I have been using some specific permissions concerning the auth user model,
so I created a proxy model on user like this:
class User(auth_models.User):
class Meta:
proxy = True
perm
Op donderdag 15 maart 2012 11:52:42 UTC+1 schreef Aymeric Augustin het
volgende:
>
> Le 15 mars 2012 10:27, koenb a écrit :
>
>> this could very well be one of those "don't do that" things, but here is
>> my problem.
>>
>> I have been using so
On 27 sep, 05:18, Luke Plant wrote:
> On 27/09/11 03:23, Alex Gaynor wrote:
>
> Would you like to share your solution? I found it pretty difficult to
> come up with anything that:
>
> 1) could be done on a per-query basis and
> 2) didn't require changes to the code that would use the QuerySet
>
Just to add a little note: back in May I did some work on multidb,
some thoughts and some work can be found on http://trac.woe-beti.de/ ,
which Ben Ford set up for this.
I stopped because django was becoming too much of a moving target to
keep it in sync (and i did not have the time).
I would lik
In ticket #10113 I signalled two problems. The first was almost
immediately fixed by Russel (thanks!). For the second problem I added
a specific testcase that was giving me wrong results. It concerns an
annotated query with ordering on a foreign key that was not yet
included in the query. Russel r
> My "nuts and bolts" document ...
Hi Alex,
about a year ago, I spent a few weeks working on multiple database
support myself (building further on the code in ticket #4747).
I used a mercurial trac setup by Ben Ford to store the work and some
notes. It can be found at http://trac.woe-beti.de. (
> Is there any downside to checking this in immediately? It's a simple
> enough change that I don't see it introducing any bugs (famous last
> words, right?)...
Please don't allow using connections from different database backends
unless the problems of using the correct database options are reso
On 26 mrt, 17:48, "Madhusudan C.S" wrote:
> Hi all,
> [snipped]
I can't seem to find anything on the problem concerning contenttypes
in your proposal (see [1] for some recent discussion).
It would be nice to see that solved too, since it is one of the
inconveniences that has bitten me several ti
Is there any news on updating the svn repo for this branch ?
k
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To u
I am trying to create a django backend for DB2. I am trying to do this
using a DB2 Express C and the pydb2 module.
It is coming around quite nicely. I have the test suite down to 7
failures and 3 errors, but now I am a bit stuck.
My biggest hurdle at this point is that DB2 does not have an easy
On 11 jul, 16:12, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 7/11/07, Ben Ford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > None as yet, I'm really keen to get it back into the svn repo, but I think
> > the people concerned are busy with other things at the moment.
>
> I've said this a couple times
> I was, however, turned off by the state of pydb2 -- it looked like the
> project hasn't been touched in years.
You are right. I used the patch made by Javier Villavicencio (see
[1]), which makes things somewhat better.
I contacted him, and it seems he has a lot more improvements ready,
but need
You might also mention the existence of "junction.exe" on windows (see
[1]), which gives you more or less an equivalent of symlinks.
Also very practical, and maybe not known by too many people.
> Could you drop this into a wiki page, please. Give it a descriptive
> title and it will show up easil
I created a ticket with my efforts (#5052). There are still some
issues to be solved though.
Feedback is welcome.
Koen
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this gro
[5722] fixed a problem from #4899 concerning make-messages.py.
However, the fix caused problems for Windows users (empty po files are
generated).
Ramiro Morales provided a patch to the ticket that solves the problem
(this has been acknowledged by several users in the ticket).
Can someone take a
I am having a similar problem with a custom db2 backend I am working
on too.
Maybe it can be linked in the implementation to some backend flag (in
the backends DatabaseFeatures) stating that deferred constraint
checking is not (entirely) implemented ? This as opposed to hardcoding
"mysql" in the t
Hey Mike,
> To use Koen's example, he has not implement regex lookups yet, and he wishes
> to tell the test not to fail as it simply not implemented. In my opinion the
> test SHOULD fail because well the test is to see whether or not this feature
> is implement, and its not. Now i'm not familiar
I added a new patch to ticket 689. This one does not use settings
(thanks Joseph Kocherhans).
It combines the use of a middleware and an authentication backend to
use the Remote_user information passed down by apache. This is usefull
in intranets where you can use apache with mod_ntlm or mod_auth_
If I understand it correctly, the aggregate and annotate ideas are
result driven, not by the SQL that might be involved (which should
indeed be entirely hidden). Aggregate normally gives one result,
annotate gives you a bunch of objects, but with extra information PER
object (normally from an aggr
For those interested in multiple database support, I have started
working on it again, and posted my work-in-progress to ticket #4747.
I started from trunk and added things from the multidb branch little
by little, since so much has changed in that area since then.
There is still a lot more that
Ah, missed that one.
Anyway, I only did the easy parts (that is, getting data in and out of
existing databases).
Thanks for the pointer, I'll try to keep an eye on that.
Koen
On 20 mei, 16:56, "Nicola Larosa (tekNico)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> koenb wrote:
>
I really like this line of thought: having the persistence layer of a
model fixed is a good idea.
Relations is a big issue here: unless we can support relations across
databases, switching connections is always a big opportunity to shoot
yourself in the foot.
I would propose a function that can co
You need to be aware that this is quite complicated if your model has
foreign keys in it: if you use the ORM to do queries, the ORM would
have to be so smart as to when to split up your queries instead of
doing joins.
eg you have model A which foreign keys to a User model. For a row of A
that is i
On 22 mei, 18:28, "Ben Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've now re-applied Daryls patch (which was against qsrf) to a clone of
> django trunk in a mercurial repo. It's available
> athttp://hg.woe-beti.deandthere's a trac set up for it
> athttp://trac.woe-beti.de. Feel free to make
27 matches
Mail list logo
