On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 23:51 -0500, Gary Wilson wrote:
> Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:00 -0700, sime wrote:
> >> 1. Magic cleaned_data - So we can get/set values out of order and
> >> before the clean() run, having themselves clean implicitly as
> >> required.
> >
> > Can
Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:00 -0700, sime wrote:
>> 1. Magic cleaned_data - So we can get/set values out of order and
>> before the clean() run, having themselves clean implicitly as
>> required.
>
> Can you give an example of what you mean here? I can't visualise what's
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 21:28 -0700, Brian Harring wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:42PM -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > So I was writing Django view unit tests and setting up fixtures with
> > sample data, and it hit me -- wouldn't it be useful we made it easy to
> > run the Django developm
Brian Harring said the following:
> 2) Adding functionality to automatically collect/serialize a stream of
> interp. commands
I think there might be some misunderstanding here - I believe he's
saying to merely dump the fixture out again using the new database with
changes - so if you start runse
On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 04:31:42PM -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> So I was writing Django view unit tests and setting up fixtures with
> sample data, and it hit me -- wouldn't it be useful we made it easy to
> run the Django development server with fixture data?
>
> I'm proposing a "--with-fixtur
Hello Django Developers,
Over the past week and half I have been working on adding support for
the datetime and time fields and also adding support for i18n and
making the code PEP-8 compliant.
Now 'in' check condition is supported better
Earlier if I used Check(tax_payment_date__in =
(date(2
Malcolm Tredinnick said the following:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:18 -0700, sime wrote:
>> 6. Maybe allow clean_method=x in field parameters, rather than have to
>> create a custom field or repeat similar clean functions.
>
> You can do that one in this fashion...
>
> class MyForm(Form)
On 8/13/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm going to start another thread about this, because there are some
> broader lessons, but at one point on the weekend I started keeping track
> of what changes I had to make to "ready to commit" tickets. Somewhere
> between 1 in 5 and 1
On 8/13/07, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That won't work, we have to back it out.
> >
> > The patch re-introduces "LIMIT 1". LIMIT is non-standard SQL and doesn't
> > exist on Oracle (which was the reason for removing it in the first
> > place). We can't do this.
>
> Looking m
On Aug 14, 2:22 pm, Malcolm Tredinnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> [...]
> I'm going to start another thread about this, because there are some
> broader lessons, but at one point on the weekend I started keeping track
> of what changes I had to make to "ready to commit" tickets. Somewhere
>
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 02:03 +, SmileyChris wrote:
> On Aug 14, 10:24 am, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Oh, I forgot to mention something about possibly introducing a bug day.
>
> +1
>
> Perhaps with an IRC channel for discussion?
You definitely want a separate IRC channel. And
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 17:03 -0500, Gary Wilson wrote:
[...]
> I stumbled upon bazaar's Bundle Buggy [1] the other day while reading
> the Bazaar Core Developer Handbook [2]. Essentially, the way things
> work is that patches are submitted via email (by sending to a mailing
> list with special tex
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:36 -0400, Todd O'Bryan wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:31 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > I'm proposing a "--with-fixture" flag to django-admin.py, so that you
> > could do something like this:
> >
> > django-admin.py runserver --with-fixture=mydata.json
> >
> >
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 17:59 -0500, James Bennett wrote:
> On 8/13/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Proposal #1 seems simpler, but this is not a strong opinion. :-)
>
> The only thing that's keeping me from posting a patch for this right
> now with option 1 is a lingering doubt a
On Aug 14, 10:24 am, Gary Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oh, I forgot to mention something about possibly introducing a bug day.
+1
Perhaps with an IRC channel for discussion?
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:18 -0700, sime wrote:
> Another one --
>
> 6. Maybe allow clean_method=x in field parameters, rather than have to
> create a custom field or repeat similar clean functions.
You can do that one in this fashion...
class MyForm(Form)
field1 = ...
Hi Simon,
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 18:00 -0700, sime wrote:
> Hello all, I have some suggestions for newforms, which I've condensed
> into point form, excuse me if they seem a little blunt they are just
> meant to be concise --
>
> 1. Magic cleaned_data - So we can get/set values out of order and
Another one --
6. Maybe allow clean_method=x in field parameters, rather than have to
create a custom field or repeat similar clean functions.
> 5. (Somewhat pedantic) Rename data[] to raw_data[] and cleaned_data[]
> to data[] - Has anyone seen how unnecessarily ugly this can get?
Sorry I take
On Tue, 2007-08-14 at 10:26 +1000, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:45 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> > On 8/12/07, Simon Greenhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to work out if Ticket #5030 is good to go or not.
> > > Basically, when save() is called on a model,
Hello all, I have some suggestions for newforms, which I've condensed
into point form, excuse me if they seem a little blunt they are just
meant to be concise --
1. Magic cleaned_data - So we can get/set values out of order and
before the clean() run, having themselves clean implicitly as
requir
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:45 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> On 8/12/07, Simon Greenhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying to work out if Ticket #5030 is good to go or not.
> > Basically, when save() is called on a model, django does a SELECT
> > COUNT(*)... query to check that the primary
On 8/13/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Proposal #1 seems simpler, but this is not a strong opinion. :-)
The only thing that's keeping me from posting a patch for this right
now with option 1 is a lingering doubt about whether one of the
queries would be preferable; in the spirit
Brian Harring wrote:
> So... thoughts? The second round of refactoring posted on 5106
> currently lacks some of the new features mentioned above (need to port
> them over mainly), but v3l address that, and add in at least a
> SteadyDB persistant connection (pooling would be based off that). T
On Mon, 2007-08-13 at 16:31 -0500, Adrian Holovaty wrote:
> I'm proposing a "--with-fixture" flag to django-admin.py, so that you
> could do something like this:
>
> django-admin.py runserver --with-fixture=mydata.json
>
> With this command, Django would:
>
> * Delete the test database when
Gary Wilson wrote:
> I agree with all the points you make here, Brian. We revamped the
> ticket process a few months ago and I think any further changes is going
> to give us diminishing returns.
Oh, I forgot to mention something about possibly introducing a bug day.
It's always more fun and mo
Brian Harring wrote:
> While reordering the bug flow is a good thing, I'm not really sure
> about the gain of it. Basically, better tools/flow doesn't mean
> faster resolution/commits- just means it's organized better. A weekly
> email *would* be nice, but view it as a stopgap approach to try
On 8/12/07, Simon Greenhill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to work out if Ticket #5030 is good to go or not.
> Basically, when save() is called on a model, django does a SELECT
> COUNT(*)... query to check that the primary key is good.
I've checked in that patch in
http://code.djangoproj
On 8/13/07, Adrian Holovaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> django-admin.py runserver --with-fixture=mydata.json
>
I think you're reading my mind -- I was thinking about this just the
other day. It would really, really help... and the "writeback" idea
(serializing the data back into a fixture
On 8/13/07, James Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. Change the lookup type, to do a 'gte' on the first day of the month
> and an 'lt' on the first day of the next month.
>
> 2. Keep the lookup type, but switch the internals of the view to using
> datetime.datetime objects instead of datetime
So I was writing Django view unit tests and setting up fixtures with
sample data, and it hit me -- wouldn't it be useful we made it easy to
run the Django development server with fixture data?
I'm proposing a "--with-fixture" flag to django-admin.py, so that you
could do something like this:
On Aug 13, 2:02 pm, "Kai Kuehne" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> what about features? Do you have more than
> django comments + django-comment-uils?
At the moment it is of course not as powerful as django-comments and
django-comment-utils together. This is because it is still a draft. I
was waiting
The generic archive_month view has had some problems in the past with
"off-by-one"-style errors; see, for example, #992, nostalgic for me
because it was the first patch of mine ever accepted into Django.
Unfortunately, the view now includes too *much* instead of too little,
as mentioned in #3031,
On 8/13/07, Russell Keith-Magee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Brian Ferring seems to be on top of this one. There's a separate
Bother. That should be Brian Harring. Apologies Brian.
Russ %-)
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribe
Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On 8/12/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> How about the patch below? When you create the cursor, if you want
>> access to "don't run this SQL, just have playback available", just use
>> connection.cursor(playback_only=True), and if you want to roll the
Hi Johannes,
what about features? Do you have more than
django comments + django-comment-uils?
If not, I don't know why one should use this.
Kai
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" g
On 8/12/07, George Vilches <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How about the patch below? When you create the cursor, if you want
> access to "don't run this SQL, just have playback available", just use
> connection.cursor(playback_only=True), and if you want to roll the
This is a simple approach tha
As hinted at earlier on the ml, have started doing some work on
refactoring the actual db backend; ticket 5106 holds the current
version (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5106).
Best to start with perceived cons of current design of the backends-
1) redundancy of code; each backend implemen
On Mon, Aug 13, Mike Axiak wrote:
>
> If you're interested in performance, would it not also be wise to
> issue a LIMIT 1 at the end of the query if possible? I believe SELECT
> 1 will just return N 1s and the RDBMS will not stop searching simply
> because it found it. There are also some ticket
On Aug 13, 3:12 am, Collin Grady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This post may be better suited for the django-users list.
>
> This list is for the discussion of the development of django itself,
> not apps that use django.
Well there was this thread [1] about a contrib comments rewrite and
Jacob re
This is the seventh status update for my Summer of Code project, the
Django REST interface [1].
Last week, I extracted code from the ModelResource class that is not
directly related to models but useful for resources in general, moved
it to Resource and made ModelResource inherit from Resource. I
40 matches
Mail list logo
