Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Ludwig Kraatz wrote: > Just found a way to describe my point of view in a little different way: > * Why is there a need to have Authentication and Authorization in one App - > when both answer a totally different purpose? * > But the answer -

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Yeah i got your point and thats totally fine - i'll definitely find a workaround ;-) Just found a way to describe my point of view in a little different way: * Why is there a need to have Authentication and Authorization in one App - when both answer a totally different purpose? * But the

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 7:25 PM, Ludwig Kraatz wrote: > Hi Russ, > > >> >> > - The last_login field is in the AbstractBaseUser, but it isn't >> > documented as a required field. Is this field required for something? >> > Is it needed as part of AbstractBaseUser? >> >> Yes,

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Hi Russ, > > > - The last_login field is in the AbstractBaseUser, but it isn't > > documented as a required field. Is this field required for something? > > Is it needed as part of AbstractBaseUser? > > Yes, last_login is required - it's needed in order to generate > password reset tokens

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

That's a great addition to the project! Congratulations. I couldn't hold myself from adding my two cents to this topic. Having the custom user model available on "django.contrib.auth.models.User" would be transparent for third party apps and south migrations. This is kinda the way django-shop

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 8:14 PM, rizumu wrote: > > It is great to see this merged, it has been a long time coming. :) > > I would like to add backwards compatibility to some apps and I'm looking for > a recommended technique. Could the following, or a better option, find its >

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

I've been thinking about external app compatibility as well and it seems like: from django.conf import settings AUTH_USER_MODEL = getattr(settings, 'AUTH_USER_MODEL', 'auth.User') class SomeModel(models.Model): author = models.ForeignKey(AUTH_USER_MODEL) is the easiest solution to

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

It is great to see this merged, it has been a long time coming. :) I would like to add backwards compatibility to some apps and I'm looking for a recommended technique. Could the following, or a better option, find its way into the docs in a section specific to app developers tasked with

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Ben Slavin wrote: > Those apps that require (or choose to offer) a deeper stack of version > support can choose to do so, but the pragmatism of making the common case > easy (and removing the need for cross-project duplication) seems to justify > the

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 9:34:38 PM UTC-4, dstufft wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Ben Slavin wrote: > > Lastly, I haven't seen a path to easily allow third-party apps to > gracefully support both The Old Way and The New Way (1.4 and 1.5). It feels > a bit wrong, but

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

> > If your project specifies a custom user, you should get validation > warnings saying that there are foreign keys to a swapped model (and > indicate which foreign keys are affected). > Indeed I did. This was greatly appreciated. > This does means that there is a "1.5 compatible" barrier

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Ben Slavin wrote: > Hi Russ, > > First, let me apologize for being a bit late to the party on this. If > there's been prior discussion of any of the points below kindly tell me to > get stuffed and so shall I do. You asked for it… :-)

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Tuesday, September 18, 2012 at 9:13 PM, Ben Slavin wrote: > Lastly, I haven't seen a path to easily allow third-party apps to gracefully > support both The Old Way and The New Way (1.4 and 1.5). It feels a bit wrong, > but should we be considering the addition of get_user_model and >

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Hi Russ, First, let me apologize for being a bit late to the party on this. If there's been prior discussion of any of the points below kindly tell me to get stuffed and so shall I do. Our team has been working with the t3011 branch today. We ran into some trouble running tests locally. The

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 9:13 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > I meant to say that after this is committed to 1.5, should we allow for > some polishing changes to get in after feature freeze even if they are > technically feature additions. > The kinds of changes you are

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On 16 syys, 15:50, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > We could easily hold up this patch on making the admin forms > completely flexible for all possible user models. However, for my > money, we still have a couple of months to nail down any problem areas > in the API, and

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 8:15 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On 16 syys, 02:15, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: > Creating an admin class for no-added-fields extended user model is > somewhat straightforward, although the admin forms currently assume

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On 16 syys, 02:15, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > >   - The last_login field is in the AbstractBaseUser, but it isn't > > documented as a required field. Is this field required for something? > > Is it needed as part of AbstractBaseUser? > > Yes, last_login is required -

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Hi all, I've just pushed fixes that: * Correct the patch for Python 3 * Merges Anssi's AbstractUser base class changes * Moves skipIfCustomUser to django.contrib.auth.tests.utils * Improves the error message when you have a Proxy to a swapped class * Updates the documentation to address the

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On 15 syys, 18:59, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: >> With the above commits I can do this: >> >> class MyUser(AbstractUser): >> employee_no = models.CharField(max_length=5) >>

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > On 15 syys, 15:34, Russell Keith-Magee > wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> The implementation of custom User models is now ready for final >> review, prior to commit to trunk. >> >> The code is

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On 15 syys, 18:59, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > With the above commits I can do this: > > class MyUser(AbstractUser): >     employee_no = models.CharField(max_length=5) >     some_other_field = models.TextField(null=True, blank=True) >     REQUIRED_FIELDS =

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

On 15 syys, 15:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Hi all, > > The implementation of custom User models is now ready for final > review, prior to commit to trunk. > > The code is available in my Github repo, in the t3011 branch. > >

Re: #3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Hey Russ -- I took the liberty of opening up a pull request (https://github.com/django/django/pull/370) so that I can leave comments inline. Hope you don't mind. Jacob On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 7:34 AM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Hi all, > > The implementation of

#3011 - Custom User Models -- Call for final review

Hi all, The implementation of custom User models is now ready for final review, prior to commit to trunk. The code is available in my Github repo, in the t3011 branch. https://github.com/freakboy3742/django/tree/t3011 The diff is available here: