On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> This works! I can't thank you enough! I dived into the source code to
> understand what was happening but I did not get much. I really hope I can be
> of more help in the future.
>
> I have one last question, if I
the issue is because the addition of test_parent to child1.parents
triggers two individual "dirty" events, which each resolve to the same
INSERT operation into the parents_children_relationship table.
Normally, these two dirty events are resolved together during the
flush process. However, within
On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> I understand it might be a lot to process, and I really appreciate your
> help. To avoid polluting this mailing list with more code I've moved this
> question to Stackoverflow at
>
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:06 PM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> So I watched the video, made a lot of stuff clear. What I'm not certain
> about is the symmetry of relationships.
>
>
> I used to think that, in many to many relationships (perhaps for all of the
> relationships
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:44 PM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> So I'm back to this, and I wonder about something you said:
>>
>>
>> the main complication here is that those "dynamic" relationships
>> require that a query runs for everything, which means everything has
>> to be in
So I'm back to this, and I wonder about something you said:
>
> the main complication here is that those "dynamic" relationships
> require that a query runs for everything, which means everything has
> to be in the database, which means it flushes the session very
> aggressively (and also
At the moment I've moved to other features, but I should be back to this
somewhere in the near future. I will let you know the results.
I really appreciate your time, thanks again.
Best,
Am Donnerstag, 3. Mai 2018 10:10:47 UTC-3 schrieb Mike Bayer:
>
> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Diego
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 7:39 AM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> Thanks again for your reply
>
>> at the core is that when you remove a child from the parent in the
>> _remove_pets event, you want to prevent the _remove_children() event
>> from actually happening, I think.
>
>
>
Just wanted to note something,
I tried to work on an implementation here which would also have to be
> extremely clever but I realized I don't actually understand what this
> is supposed to do.
>
> *if "remove child from parent" has two different flavors then there needs
> to be all kinds of
Thanks again for your reply
at the core is that when you remove a child from the parent in the
> _remove_pets event, you want to prevent the _remove_children() event
> from actually happening, I think.
>
Yes, since it is a different usage case or flavour. I was trying to pass
kwargs to the event
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> Hello, thanks again for your help. I'm not sure I understand what you said
> totally, and I believe this is the most simple MCVE I can provide.
>
> My local tests use postgresql, but I'm setting an in-memory sqlite3
Hello, thanks again for your help. I'm not sure I understand what you said
totally, and I believe this is the most simple MCVE I can provide.
My local tests use postgresql, but I'm setting an in-memory sqlite3 engine
here. I'm not fond of the differences between two backends, but the tests
run
On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 10:14 AM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> This worked.
>
> I'm trying to achieve some rather tricky behaviour, where
>
> Adding a children to some parent will also add the child's pets to the
> parent
> Removing a children from some parent will also remove
This worked.
I'm trying to achieve some rather tricky behaviour, where
1. Adding a children to some parent will also add the child's pets to
the parent
2. Removing a children from some parent will also remove every current
relationship that the Parent has with such pet
3. If
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Diego Quintana wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Say I have three tables in a declarative fashion, `Parent`, `Child`, and
> `Pet`, in such way that
>
> * `Parent` has a many-to-many relationship with both `Child` and `Pet`,
> meaning that a Parent can
Hello.
Say I have three tables in a declarative fashion, `Parent`, `Child`, and
`Pet`, in such way that
* `Parent` has a many-to-many relationship with both `Child` and `Pet`,
meaning that a Parent can own a Child and its pets, and also a Pet without
its Child.
* `Child` has a one-to-many
16 matches
Mail list logo