Dnia 2009-10-08, czw o godzinie 11:16 -0400, Michael Bayer pisze:
Tefnet Developers wrote:
Dnia 2009-10-08, czw o godzinie 09:59 -0400, Michael Bayer pisze:
Is this a SQLAlchemy bug or my mistake?
Backrefs deal with the two-way relation between A-B, but the event
does
not
Michael Bayer schrieb:
I had the idea that since a1 appears to be in the collections of both u1
and u2, it would be arbitrary where a1 ended up after the flush
completed. But that is likely wrong, in that the flush() is going to look
at change events to determine what state changes to
Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
Michael Bayer schrieb:
I had the idea that since a1 appears to be in the collections of both
u1
and u2, it would be arbitrary where a1 ended up after the flush
completed. But that is likely wrong, in that the flush() is going to
look
at change events to
Tefnet Developers schrieb:
I am having a problem here - at one point a one-to-many relation
attribute is not in sync with a backref one (http://dpaste.com/104225/):
I can reproduce this and also like to know whether this is a bug or
simply not supported by the default list instrumentation.
Dnia 2009-10-08, czw o godzinie 13:49 +0200, Christoph Zwerschke pisze:
By the way, you don't need to use a meta class in your example; you can
simply set
manager = sqlalchemy.orm.relation(
'Employee', backref='subordinates', remote_side=Id)
I needed it for other stuff so
Tefnet Developers wrote:
SteveBallmer = Employee(name = 'Steve Ballmer')
CraigMundie = Employee(name = 'Craig Mundie')
BillGates = Employee(name = 'Bill Gates')
CraigMundie.manager = BillGates
SteveBallmer.subordinates = [CraigMundie]
print CraigMundie.manager: %s % (CraigMundie.manager)
Dnia 2009-10-08, czw o godzinie 09:59 -0400, Michael Bayer pisze:
Is this a SQLAlchemy bug or my mistake?
Backrefs deal with the two-way relation between A-B, but the event
does
not propagate in most cases to C or beyond, i.e. A-B-C where B is
attached to A would indicate C-B becomes
Tefnet Developers wrote:
Dnia 2009-10-08, czw o godzinie 09:59 -0400, Michael Bayer pisze:
Is this a SQLAlchemy bug or my mistake?
Backrefs deal with the two-way relation between A-B, but the event
does
not propagate in most cases to C or beyond, i.e. A-B-C where B is
attached to A would
Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
@Mike: The test code says in a comment flushing at this point means its
anyone's guess. Can you elaborate what is meant by this comment?
I had the idea that since a1 appears to be in the collections of both u1
and u2, it would be arbitrary where a1 ended up after
On Oct 8, 2009, at 4:02 PM, Christoph Zwerschke wrote:
So this behavior is in fact intended by SQLAlchemy. As Mike explained,
this is because propagating events further than the 2 objects directly
involved would become too complex, possibly leading to recursion and
performance issues.
the
10 matches
Mail list logo
