I've been bitten by this once before as well but I think it's the kind of
mistake you make once and never again, and if you happen to encounter it
again you immediately know what it is (duplicated/missing items across
pages? must be a non-unique ordering).
I don't think implicitly adding an
I feel like this is a very niche use case and probably doesn't warrant
implementing field-to-column one-to-many relationships in Django, I don't
see why this specific case can't be implemented as:
1. A model that implements the data type
2. A custom field + custom datatype on the database
I'd personally like to see better support for safe / N-1 compatible
migrations within Django itself, currently if you do CD / blue-green tower
/ etc. deployments you need to be very careful about the migration
operations that you introduce version-to-version, although I'm not sure
what that
nd Regards,
>
> Carlton
>
>
> On Wed, 5 Oct 2022 at 12:47, Adrian Torres wrote:
>
>> Sorry for reviving the thread but just ran into this issue again and
>> wanted to ask, has there anything been done to address this?
>>
>> For me having max_length=None mean
Sorry for reviving the thread but just ran into this issue again and wanted
to ask, has there anything been done to address this?
For me having max_length=None mean "unlimited varchar" for Postgres and
being an error for any other database (or those that don't support
unlimited varchar) is the
Hi,
Regardless of what you consider ModelForms to be, the fact that validation
doesn't happen at the model level is very jarring if you've ever used any
other MVC framework, it was and still is one of the major pet peeves of
Django for me, to the point where we do something similar to what Uri
Hi Liamine,
I think there's various solutions you could try before going the custom
field route:
* You could try just using the 2D version and use some sentinel value for
the date (NULL?) to treat the case where you just want an array of N prices.
* You could try using django-polymorphic [1]
A common idiom is also
```
try:
foo = Foo.objects.get(x="foo")
except Foo.DoesNotExist:
foo = None
```
which is pretty pythonic IMO, but I wouldn't be opposed to a keyword-only
argument on `get` that returns `None` if not found
```
foo = Foo.objects.get(x="foo", strict=False)
# or
foo
I personally dislike Adam's suggestion and feel like it makes it worse than
the current default, but to each their own.
I do prefer the proposed solution of the config directory, I am working on
two django projects in parallel and one follows the proposed config scheme
and the other doesn't
Alright, I'm still not 100% convinced it wouldn't be best having them as
separate methods, but for the sake of moving things along I'll implement it.
One thing that's not quite clear: you mentioned adding a backwards
compatibility warning, is this the same as a RemovedInDjangoXXWarning?
Should
Hey Florian,
First of all, thank you for the feedback and I'm glad you agree that the
feature would be nice to have :)
I'm willing to implement whichever version people agree on since I do think
the feature will be useful, but I do think that having separate methods is
clearer, simpler, as well
Hello all,
I'd like to get your feedback and comments regarding the ticket mentioned
in the subject line: adding a mechanism/hook to the RemoteUserBackend that
allows for synchronization of user attributes between the remote system and
the django server on each authentication attempt.
12 matches
Mail list logo