#19061: Clarify the contract regarding is_active on custom users
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Reporter: russellm | Owner: nobody
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Documentation | Version: master
Severity: Release blocker | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Comment (by russellm):
Putting is_active on the AbstractBaseUser seems like a good approach to
me, as long AbstractUser doesn't break anything when it defines the
is_active database property, and then we can make the whole thing simpler.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/19061#comment:3>
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 post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
