#19777: Casting a SimpleLazyObject to an int fails
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: mattrobenolt | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: closed
Component: Core (Other) | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: wontfix
Keywords: functional | Triage Stage:
simplelazyobject | Unreviewed
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jacob):
* status: new => closed
* needs_better_patch: => 0
* resolution: => wontfix
* needs_tests: => 0
* needs_docs: => 0
Comment:
Closing after IRC discussion:
{{{
jacobkm: mattrobenolt: I'm a bit confused: why are you passing a user into
something that expects an int?
jacobkm: I don't think it really has anything to do with the lazy object;
if you did that with a non-lazy object you'd just get something like "
int() argument must be a string or a number, not 'User'"
mattrobenolt: jacobkm: So we've been staring at this.
mattrobenolt: There's a bug in our code which causes us to pass in an
AnonymousUser to our filter.
mattrobenolt: Which uncovered the SimpleLazyObject bug.
mattrobenolt: Inside Django's RelatedField._pk_trace, it's looking for a
model's pk to get around the coersion.
mattrobenolt: If it's an Anonymous user, there is none of that, so it
fails ugly.
mattrobenolt: So I guess we've uncovered a couple issues. 1) A bug in our
code.
mattrobenolt: 2) A bug in coercing any SimpleLazyObject to an int with
__int__.
mattrobenolt: 3) Should passing an AnonymousUser to a filter yield a
better error?
jacobkm: I'd say no to 3 since that would basically require special-casing
AnonymousUser somewhere nasty.
mattrobenolt: I agree on that.
jacobkm: I'm trying to think through why you'd need __int__ on the lazy
object. It's not really a public API, it's just used within Django in a
few places, and we never need it in an int context.
jacobkm: So I'm inclined to say "no"
mattrobenolt: Yeah, after uncovering our bug, it wouldn't have solved it
since it's still a bug on our end.
mattrobenolt: Err, that didn't make much sense, but yeah.
mattrobenolt: I'm trying to think of a better way to solve this. At least
in terms of a better error message.
mattrobenolt: Because this was terrible to track down considering we
pinned it on that. :)
fhahn left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
jacobkm: Yeah I think I'm gonna close this; if you come up with a way to
make better error messages I'm all about that.
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/19777#comment:1>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
