On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
charettes wrote:
> I think deleted_selected is *special* since it's the only default
> action provided.
>
I agree, but...
> I guess we could document that a method name string reference should
> be passed to AdminSite.add_action if it's meant to be
I think deleted_selected is *special* since it's the only default action
provided.
I guess we could document that a method name string reference should be
passed to AdminSite.add_action if it's meant to be overridden.
Simon
Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 13:04:35 UTC-4, Carlton Gibson a écrit :
>
>
OK, thanks both. Seems reasonable. Let me have a look at it in the morning.
One question is whether we handle this for just delete_selected or any
action which an AdminSite declares.
The example from #30311 was `expect_inquisition` (Nice) Do we want to
handle that too? 樂
Cheers.
C.
On
(sorry about the previous empty mail, UI glitch)
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
charettes wrote:
> Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind
>
> https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45
>
Yes, that would do what I want and seems better than
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 09:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
charettes wrote:
> Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind
>
> https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45
>
> Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 12:20:54 UTC-4, charettes a écrit :
> >
> > Given the common need to override
Hi Carlton,
On Wed, 18 Mar 2020 17:11:49 +0100
Carlton Gibson wrote:
> I triaged that, and was involved in the change in #29917 that led to
> your issue.
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29917
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/-OWoYL_zryM/discussion
>
Yes, I've
Just to make the above clear, here's what I had in mind
https://gist.github.com/charettes/a0cb94242ac9c198625b23f4f55fab45
Le mercredi 18 mars 2020 12:20:54 UTC-4, charettes a écrit :
>
> Given the common need to override delete_selected I wonder if we could
> define it as ModelAdmin method and
Hi Shai.
I triaged that, and was involved in the change in #29917 that led to your
issue.
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29917
The proposal to change it was made on the list here:
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/-OWoYL_zryM/discussion
I’ll have another review of
I think this might be the discussion which Aymeric referenced:
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/?utm_medium=email_source=footer#!searchin/django-developers/Mongo$20orm/django-developers/N6WOdGGfmWk
It certainly looks like the idea won’t be easily accepted. Unless something has
changed in the
I totally agree with you, Django is the best tech in the market and having
native support of MongoDB or NoSQL can definitely help the industry to
choose Django as there preferable tech stack.
Also, it will allow me greater flexibility for developers.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020, 10:52 AM Sanskar
Hello Sanskar,
You can find discussions about this issue in archives of this mailing list. I
don't think it came up recently; you'll have to go a few years back.
Support for MongoDB would mean support in the ORM. The R in ORM stands for
Relational. MongoDB isn't a relational database.
11 matches
Mail list logo
