Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by Sergey Fedoseev):

 Replying to [comment:9 Tim Graham]:
 > If there's consensus about that change, I would open a new ticket rather
 than reopen this one since the description and comments here have lots of
 unrelated discussion.

 I think we already have open ticket for this: #24561.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.e9abc0ca343c858f05d6768f92fe6d7f%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by Tim Graham):

 If there's consensus about that change, I would open a new ticket rather
 than reopen this one since the description and comments here have lots of
 unrelated discussion.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.3e86b91d2ced957091432e4ccbdaa187%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--
Changes (by Josh Smeaton):

 * cc: josh.smeaton@… (added)


-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.057ae1756df4bf9553bd27f9a829f4b6%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by Josh Smeaton):

 I've raised the lack of modelfield.choices on the mailing list with the
 view to reopen this ticket: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic
 /django-developers/vKsxJBafY9g

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.b2fea178be842e73d45a0757c83fd8a8%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by aidanlister):

 I hate this! There's several modules I've used where changing something in
 settings starts generating migrations in impossible places (inside
 virtualenvs, on heroku dynos, etc). There needs to be a better solution to
 this ... I really can't see the value in having choices exposed to the
 migrations if it's not wanted (e.g. a callable is used).

--
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.df973840a5e21b8ec4044f58e21378fc%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by guettli):

 Unfortunately Django 1.7 does not allow choices to be a callable. This was
 introduced in Django 1.8.

 That's sad.

--
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.db60fc4c3cde65ea3a4353240971b859%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by MarkusH):

 Replying to [comment:3 pykler]:
 > Tell me what the correct behaviour is in the following scenario
 (according to the ticket close comment, this is a scenario that is
 designed for).
 >
 > {{{
 > 0001 migration   choices are ('a', 'apple'), ('b', 'banana')
 > 0002 datainsert into table choice 'banana'
 > 0003 migration   model has only one choice now ('a', 'apple')
 > }}}
 >
 > From my tests, django doesn't (and 100% defenitely shouldn't) be
 deleting data or replacing data in every record of my database table on
 migration 0003. So the reality is, this point in time validation check is
 really only for checking if the choice is valid during the data migration
 which isn't really useful.

 Django will **not** go through your database table and remove all rows
 with 'banana'. But you could add another migration that selects all rows
 that don't have valid data and work with them on your own. And you can
 only do that if you have `choices` in your field definition.

 > The problem with this design is some apps (third party) will have a
 dynamic set of choices depending on your settings, so they cannot reliably
 deliver a set of migrations causing the user of the app to have to create
 migrations on behalf of the third party app.

 They can, by passing a callable to `choices`. See #13181

--
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.075cf25b4f84a2c558f0be0c777a8de2%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--

Comment (by pykler):

 To me this is future proofing since no DBMS (that I know of) has such a
 constraint on char fields (which is what is used here).

 Tell me what the correct behaviour is in the following scenario (according
 to the ticket close comment, this is a scenario that is designed for).

 {{{
 0001 migration   choices are ('a', 'apple'), ('b', 'banana')
 0002 datainsert into table choice 'banana'
 0003 migration   model has only one choice now ('a', 'apple')
 }}}

 From my tests, django doesn't (and 100% defenitely shouldn't) be deleting
 data or replacing data in every record of my database table on migration
 0003. So the reality is, this point in time validation check is really
 only for checking if the choice is valid during the data migration which
 isn't really useful.

 The problem with this design is some apps (third party) will have a
 dynamic set of choices depending on your settings, so they cannot reliably
 deliver a set of migrations causing the user of the app to have to create
 migrations on behalf of the third party app.

 Surely there is a better design out there to solve the scenario where a
 datamigration is somehow validated and no grief is caused to django users.

 PS. I believe django migrations are very elegant even with this little
 design snafu https://twitter.com/pykler/status/546868601492627456

--
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.a9ad07094fb2556cc7b4de2d254e94d1%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:  invalid
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--
Changes (by mjtamlyn):

 * status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => invalid


Comment:

 This is by design. There are several reasons, not least of which for me
 that datamigrations at points in history need to have a full accurate
 representation of the models, including all their options not just those
 which affect the database.

 [Bendavis: if, as I read from your comment, you believed this was not a
 valid bug, you are welcome to close the ticket yourself]

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.4334008008220e2cdf2cb3fca6aff82e%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+--
 Reporter:  valberg|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  |   Status:  new
Component:  Migrations |  Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Resolution:
 Keywords: | Triage Stage:  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0  |  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0  |  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |UI/UX:  0
---+--
Changes (by bendavis78):

 * needs_better_patch:   => 0
 * needs_tests:   => 0
 * needs_docs:   => 0


Comment:

 From what I understand, the migrations system doesn't discriminate between
 field attributes, so if any attribute changes (even ones like help text),
 the auto-detector will treat it like any other change. There's currently
 no elegant way to predict how field attributes might affect the migration
 states. See #21498 for more discussion on the subject.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/065.8c9ea104492708a20278423839d59a12%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Django] #22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes

[Django]

#22837: Migrations detect unnessecary(?) changes
---+
 Reporter:  valberg|  Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Uncategorized  | Status:  new
Component:  Migrations |Version:  1.7-beta-2
 Severity:  Normal |   Keywords:
 Triage Stage:  Unreviewed |  Has patch:  0
Easy pickings:  0  |  UI/UX:  0
---+
 I don't know if this is intended behavior, but having a simple model as:

 {{{
 class Foo(models.Model):
 bar = models.SlugField()
 }}}

 Simple changes, that do have no impact on the database representation,
 result in new migrations. For instance:

 {{{
 class Foo(models.Model):
 bar = models.SlugField(editable=False)
 }}}

 results in:

 {{{
 # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
 from __future__ import unicode_literals

 from django.db import models, migrations


 class Migration(migrations.Migration):

 dependencies = [
 ('testapp', '0001_initial'),
 ]

 operations = [
 migrations.AlterField(
 model_name='foo',
 name='bar',
 field=models.SlugField(editable=False),
 ),
 ]
 }}}

 And further:

 {{{
 class Foo(models.Model):
 bar = models.SlugField(
 editable=False,
 choices=[
 ('baz', 'Baz'),
 ('test', 'Test'),
 ]
 )
 }}}

 Results in:

 {{{
 # -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
 from __future__ import unicode_literals

 from django.db import models, migrations


 class Migration(migrations.Migration):

 dependencies = [
 ('testapp', '0002_auto_20140614_2237'),
 ]

 operations = [
 migrations.AlterField(
 model_name='foo',
 name='bar',
 field=models.SlugField(editable=False, choices=[('baz',
 'Baz'), ('test', 'Test')]),
 ),
 ]
 }}}

 It is as if the detector does "too much" detecting. But again there might
 well be a good reason for this. Just thought it would be a good thing to
 address :)

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
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/050.b5e0e1e5262abb7b2edc458e022c581d%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.