>
> I believe the technical term of this is "a mess".
>
Looks like it!
I can't think of any reason why this inconsistency would be desirable.
Adding more checks is normally fine since they can be disabled by users who
want/rely on the behaviour.
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 13:54, Shai Berger wrote:
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 12:01:34 +0100
Adam Johnson wrote:
> I think it would be acceptable to make related name clashes a check
> Error. I'm guessing you couldn't find any justification for why the
> check doesn't currently do this?
>
I didn't find any, though I didn't look too hard.
On the other
I think it would be acceptable to make related name clashes a check Error.
I'm guessing you couldn't find any justification for why the check doesn't
currently do this?
On Sun, 6 Sep 2020 at 11:31, Shai Berger wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> When you define a related field on a model -- a ForeignKey etc
Hi all,
When you define a related field on a model -- a ForeignKey etc -- it
usually adds its related-name as a backwards-accessor on the related
model. These related names are checked for clashes against other fields
and other related-names. But they are not checked for clashes against
other
