Middleware exceptions cause other middleware to not be called

TransactionMiddleware assumes that when process_request is called, either process_exception or process_response is guaranteed to be called. This isn't the case if another middleware raises an exception first. If this happens, the call to transaction.enter_transaction_management is not balanced

Re: AttributeError when running test against PostgreSql 8.4beta1

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Horacio de Oro wrote: > > On Apr 15, 9:53 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss > wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Horacio de Oro wrote: >> >> > Is this a bug? Should I file a bug report? >> >> Yes,

Re: AttributeError when running test against PostgreSql 8.4beta1

On Apr 15, 9:53 pm, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Horacio de Oro wrote: > > > Is this a bug? Should I file a bug report? > > Yes, please do. Thanks! > > Jacob Testing with another applicatoin, I've found that

Re: AttributeError when running test against PostgreSql 8.4beta1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2009 at 7:48 PM, Horacio de Oro wrote: > Is this a bug? Should I file a bug report? Yes, please do. Thanks! Jacob --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

AttributeError when running test against PostgreSql 8.4beta1

Hi! I get an AttributeError while trying PostgreSql 8.4beta1 (compiled from 'master' branch of the official git repository). See: python2.4 src/dynamicware/manage.py test xx.FeedRetrieverServiceTest Creating test database... Traceback (most recent call last): File "src/dynamicware/manage.py",

Re: Why does get_profile exist?

On Apr 15, 11:04 am, David Cramer wrote: > I was never a fan of the profile model as it stands. It's not very > practical in every situation I've ever been in. Being that 1.0 was > supposed to be backwards compatible, and this is a public API I think > it needs to stay. > >

Re: Should TransactionTestCase flush db in teardown rather than setup?

On 15 Apr 2009, at 22:25, Karen Tracey wrote: >> So am I missing something or should this be changed? > > TestCase testcases should not be running after TransactionTestCase > testcases. I had this concern prior to checking in the test changes > (see >

Should TransactionTestCase flush db in teardown rather than setup?

(I'm posting this here rather than filing a ticket, because I'm not sure whether I'm missing something. If I'm not than I will file a ticket with a patch). It strikes me that TransactionTestCase should be flushing the database in the teardown stage of the test case rather than the setup.

Re: Why does get_profile exist?

I was never a fan of the profile model as it stands. It's not very practical in every situation I've ever been in. Being that 1.0 was supposed to be backwards compatible, and this is a public API I think it needs to stay. I'd love to see a way to swap out the User model in the future though,