Hi, any chance to have a fix for this?
On 6 avr, 17:16, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
OK in fact this can possibly be implemented if the initiator passed
during attribute mutation operations consisted of not just an
AttributeImpl but also a target instance, so that
if we had some help. the next time I have time to work on SQLAlchemy
the 0.6 release is my top priority. this particular issue is a
behavioral quirk with multiple, straightforward workarounds, and it
also not entirely clear if continuing event chains in the manner I'm
proposing is even
Currently, I use accountA.remove(entry) and I have rewritten insort to
bypass the bug you say.
So, AFAIK, whereas an entry has only one account (via
entry.account_id), SA can't remove the first relation.
It's dangerous, because if developer forget to remove the first
relation, the entry is
So, we would like SA to have some kind of operation like reparent_item()
that would move an object from one relation to another.
It seems to me that this is is better handled as a piece of application
business logic. In this case, provide a move_entry() function that
properly encapsulates
The object doesn't move from one relation to another : this is the
same relation 'entries' but on a different parent. This is common to
any parent.child pattern, not a business specific case.
The current behavior is not consistent because as soon as we commit()
+ refresh(), the object is not on
im slightly confused. the backref should be automatically reparenting,
not sure if ordering_list interferes with that, but in any case after you
flush()/expire() or commit(), it will definitely happen since all
collections will load fresh.
Mike Conley wrote:
So, we would like SA to have
It would be fine/safe that accountA has entry removed BEFORE any
reload (with explicit refresh/expire/commit). I can't remember, but a
previous version of SA had this behavior.
On Apr 6, 4:42 pm, Michael Bayer mike...@zzzcomputing.com wrote:
im slightly confused. the backref should be
OK in fact this can possibly be implemented if the initiator passed
during attribute mutation operations consisted of not just an
AttributeImpl but also a target instance, so that append/remove/set
operations can have the information they need continue down the chain of
events without exiting
jean-philippe dutreve wrote:
Hi all,
I wonder if SA can handle this use case:
An Account can contain Entries ordered by 'position' attribute.
mapper(Account, table_accounts, properties = dict(
entries = relation(Entry, lazy=True, collection_class=ordering_list
('position'),
