Re: ticket 5929

[Barhamou Hama]

Hence the interest of my question, if in 15 years it has not been solved, 
there must be a reason.

Le lundi 9 janvier 2023 à 12:57:31 UTC+1, ator...@redhat.com a écrit :

> I feel like this is a very niche use case and probably doesn't warrant 
> implementing field-to-column one-to-many relationships in Django, I don't 
> see why this specific case can't be implemented as:
>
> 1. A model that implements the data type
> 2. A custom field + custom datatype on the database backend
> 3. ArrayField [1] if using postgres
>
> [1] 
> https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/contrib/postgres/fields/#arrayfield
> On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:16:56 AM UTC+1 cur...@tinbrain.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023, at 23:29, Barhamou Hama wrote:
>>
>> Hi all, I came across this ticket here 
>>  opened 15 years ago that 
>> doesn't seem to have been resolved. I decided to work on it. But in 15 
>> years a lot can happen. Is it still relevant? Has there been any progress 
>> on this issue?
>>  
>>
>>
>> IIRC there's no current support for this, the closest being 
>> GenericForeignKeys, which still require their sub-fields defined separately.
>>
>> There has been posts about supporting joint using multi-field keys (
>> https://devblog.kogan.com/blog/custom-relationships-in-django) however, 
>> that's a rather specific case.
>>
>> I think it would be a good thing for progress on this issue to happen.
>>
>> You might also want to check the ticket history for any work on 
>> multi-value keys.
>>
>> --
>> Curtis
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9e4ee8c9-aa22-4ac1-bd70-1c87427ca955n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: ticket 5929

[Barhamou Hama]

Thanks, I will study the question to find out more.
Le lundi 9 janvier 2023 à 00:16:56 UTC+1, cur...@tinbrain.net a écrit :

> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023, at 23:29, Barhamou Hama wrote:
>
> Hi all, I came across this ticket here 
>  opened 15 years ago that 
> doesn't seem to have been resolved. I decided to work on it. But in 15 
> years a lot can happen. Is it still relevant? Has there been any progress 
> on this issue?
>  
>
>
> IIRC there's no current support for this, the closest being 
> GenericForeignKeys, which still require their sub-fields defined separately.
>
> There has been posts about supporting joint using multi-field keys (
> https://devblog.kogan.com/blog/custom-relationships-in-django) however, 
> that's a rather specific case.
>
> I think it would be a good thing for progress on this issue to happen.
>
> You might also want to check the ticket history for any work on 
> multi-value keys.
>
> --
> Curtis
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/11026962-3768-47f5-91bb-7aab8150165en%40googlegroups.com.

Re: ticket 5929

[Adrian Torres]

I feel like this is a very niche use case and probably doesn't warrant 
implementing field-to-column one-to-many relationships in Django, I don't 
see why this specific case can't be implemented as:

1. A model that implements the data type
2. A custom field + custom datatype on the database backend
3. ArrayField [1] if using postgres

[1] 
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/ref/contrib/postgres/fields/#arrayfield
On Monday, January 9, 2023 at 12:16:56 AM UTC+1 cur...@tinbrain.net wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jan 2023, at 23:29, Barhamou Hama wrote:
>
> Hi all, I came across this ticket here 
>  opened 15 years ago that 
> doesn't seem to have been resolved. I decided to work on it. But in 15 
> years a lot can happen. Is it still relevant? Has there been any progress 
> on this issue?
>  
>
>
> IIRC there's no current support for this, the closest being 
> GenericForeignKeys, which still require their sub-fields defined separately.
>
> There has been posts about supporting joint using multi-field keys (
> https://devblog.kogan.com/blog/custom-relationships-in-django) however, 
> that's a rather specific case.
>
> I think it would be a good thing for progress on this issue to happen.
>
> You might also want to check the ticket history for any work on 
> multi-value keys.
>
> --
> Curtis
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/6b636002-3eb9-44f3-9510-89d7319f8231n%40googlegroups.com.

Status of 4.2 release blockers.

[Mariusz Felisiak]

Details are available on the Django forum:

https://forum.djangoproject.com/t/status-of-4-2-release-blockers/18088

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django 
developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/b47c8896-5685-5105-745e-bcdffc20f798%40gmail.com.