Re: contrib.admin:list_editable - ForeignKey Performance is O(m*n)?

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 12:40 AM, chadc wrote: ... > The jist of what I am wondering is if the changelist is going to allow > editable ForeignKeys, should it be caching the choices rather than > hitting the database every time? Yep, your models and explanation are clear.

Re: What is the correct behavior? [was: new backend: unit test ...]

On Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 2:19 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: >>> >>> Is this test look correct? >>> >> >> It passes when using

Re: Feedback for #13849 (csrf referer checking)

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:16 PM, Luke Plant wrote: > With Django's sessions and login method, you *do* have a session on the > login page itself i.e. before the actual login step.  So you need to > worry about session fixation etc. Even if not, and you are using your > own

test-refactor update

I've been ill, hence the late update and lack of progress. Last week I only committed 2 test updates, but spent significant time tracking down a fix for #13821 since it was preventing existing tests from running on Postgres 8.3. -Paul -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

[solved] What is the correct behavior? [was: new backend: unit test ...]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: > > So what is the correct Django backend behavior? > I'm going with backend-dependent for pre-1.2 Django. In 1.2 full_clean() + ValidationError is to the rescue. Thanks, m -- You received this message because you

What is the correct behavior? [was: new backend: unit test ...]

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: > On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: >> >> Is this test look correct? >> > > It passes when using SQLite ... > It fails with a postgresql_pschopg2 backend. So what is the correct

Re: Feedback for #13849 (csrf referer checking)

On Wed, 2010-06-30 at 11:08 -0400, Paul McLanahan wrote: > I agree that not allowing them by default is good, but I think that > having the option to allow them is also good. I like the default > behavior as it is, as it's inline with our "secure by default" > philosophy. But in our situation,

Re: Feedback for #13849 (csrf referer checking)

Hi Luke, Thanks for the reply. See my comments below. On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:45 AM, Luke Plant wrote: > In addition, having looked at the links that Tino sent, I now think > there is a very big advantage to not allowing HTTP -> HTTPS POST > requests by default, even

Re: contrib.admin:list_editable - ForeignKey Performance is O(m*n)?

Oh, yah, sure. Sorry. class Host(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128, unique=True) class Account(models.Model): host = models.ForeignKey(Host, related_name="accounts") name = models.CharField(max_length=128) class AccountAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin): list_display =

Re: new backend: unit test for "autocommit-like" behavior

On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 7:14 AM, Mark Bucciarelli wrote: > > Is this test look correct? > It passes when using SQLite backend, so I think the test is good. > > Currently it fails on the get() with the error > >      current transaction is aborted >      (please ROLLBACK) >

new backend: unit test for "autocommit-like" behavior

Hi, I've been working on a Django backend for MonetDB. I'm trying to write a unit test that verifieds I curently have a bug in how transactions are handled. I have a couple questions about the unit test. Here, Simple is a model with a single field "name" that has a unique index.

Re: contrib.admin:list_editable - ForeignKey Performance is O(m*n)?

On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 6:04 PM, chadc wrote: > Hi there, > > I have been experiencing poor performance with django-admin when > list_editable includes ForeignKey fields. In particular, rendering the > changelist requires O(m*n) database queries where m is the number of >

Re: Class based generic views in 1.3?

On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:45 PM, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> So here's an idea, of dubious quality ;) > > Okay, folks: at this point the discussion has pretty much descended > into bikeshedding