#20313: AnonymousUser should follow custom User implementation
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: thinkingpotato@… | Owner:
Type: New feature | thinkingpotato
Component: contrib.auth | Status: assigned
Severity: Normal | Version:
Keywords: | Resolution:
Has patch: 0 | Triage Stage: Accepted
Needs tests: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
| UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by russellm):
* stage: Unreviewed => Accepted
Comment:
Accepting on the basis that there is something that needs to be addressed
here. @ptone makes a good point about checking is_authenticated first, but
I can see how being able to "just use it" could be useful under some
circumstances, and we've been encouraging that behaviour in the days of
non-swappable User models.
Personally, I'm not completely sold that get_anonymous_model() or
ANONYMOUS_USER_MODEL is needed here - that feels a bit like overkill.
However, I'm not sure I've got a substantially better option, other than
some sort of implicit contract about has_* methods returning True (or
something similar)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/20313#comment:5>
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/082.9b27052df734a8d9a4a92d8754eedf52%40djangoproject.com?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
