Even if an abstract class was added as an intermediary, wouldn't the derived class still try to create the table? There is no solution along the lines of a meta option "donotcreatetable" or the like?
On Apr 2, 10:06 am, Adam N <a...@varud.com> wrote: > I'm pretty sure you'll need to make it an abstract model. You could > make the model that accords to the existing table abstract and then > subclass that model with no additional attributes (except a different > name) - that will give you access to the data directly if you need it > while leaving the existing table intact. This will duplicate data > though - are these highly accessed tables? > > I think. > > -Adam > > On Apr 2, 9:23 am, "Andrew G." <agross...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have a django app that is built against an existing database. In > > the database, there are a couple tables used as the many-to-many > > relation lookup table. However, I have mapped models to the many-to- > > many lookup table, since I have a need for accessing these entries > > directly. Since the tables already exists, manage.py syncdb has no > > problems, but when running manage.py test, the attempt to create the > > test database complains that the many-to-many table already exists and > > fails out. > > > Is there a way to specify ignoring the creation of this table > > somewhere, or another way to circumvent this problem? Should this be > > considered a bug? > > > I know about the abstract Meta keyword, but I didn't think that should > > apply since the many-to-many model still should be db mapped and > > accessible. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
