[sqlalchemy] Re: Column __repr__ with sqlalchemy types instead of db-specific object instances?
Michael Bayer wrote: __repr__() really annoys me because no matter what i do with it, people tell me im using it incorrectly. technically, __repr__() is supposed to return a string that when eval'ed would return the object instance. which is not realistic for an object like Table since its an enormous construction. if you want to take Tables and produce some kind of string representation, I recommend you create yourself a SchemaVisitor...since __repr__() is not something id write code against in this case. Thanks. In my limited case the __repr__ is close enough to treat it as a string for post-processing. All I need is to replace the field type instance with the proper constructor. These are one-off operations in order to commit a matching sqlalchemy model for existing versioned DDL to the repository. Would it be useful to add __repr__() roundtripping as long-term trac ticket? Acknowledging that full general-case __repr__ may be impractical, if anyone saw the ticket and had ideas for incremental improvements, __repr__ would seem to be amenable to test cases, documented limitations, etc. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: Column __repr__ with sqlalchemy types instead of db-specific object instances?
when you reflect a table from the DB, and you get back PGString, that is the actual type instance. In some cases, table reflection could be mapped to a type instance that is specific to that DB (such as MySQL's enum). i dont think changing the __repr__ of all the db- specific types to return a fake constructor is such a great idea. you can use the database-specific constructors, such as PGString or whatever, when constructing a Table. its just usually not so convenient. On Nov 8, 2006, at 5:35 PM, jeffk wrote: Michael Bayer wrote: __repr__() really annoys me because no matter what i do with it, people tell me im using it incorrectly. technically, __repr__() is supposed to return a string that when eval'ed would return the object instance. which is not realistic for an object like Table since its an enormous construction. if you want to take Tables and produce some kind of string representation, I recommend you create yourself a SchemaVisitor...since __repr__() is not something id write code against in this case. Thanks. In my limited case the __repr__ is close enough to treat it as a string for post-processing. All I need is to replace the field type instance with the proper constructor. These are one-off operations in order to commit a matching sqlalchemy model for existing versioned DDL to the repository. Would it be useful to add __repr__() roundtripping as long-term trac ticket? Acknowledging that full general-case __repr__ may be impractical, if anyone saw the ticket and had ideas for incremental improvements, __repr__ would seem to be amenable to test cases, documented limitations, etc. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[sqlalchemy] Re: Column __repr__ with sqlalchemy types instead of db-specific object instances?
__repr__() really annoys me because no matter what i do with it, people tell me im using it incorrectly. technically, __repr__() is supposed to return a string that when eval'ed would return the object instance. which is not realistic for an object like Table since its an enormous construction. if you want to take Tables and produce some kind of string representation, I recommend you create yourself a SchemaVisitor...since __repr__() is not something id write code against in this case. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups sqlalchemy group. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
