Re: [sqlalchemy] Re: standardizing sqlalchemy usage: session.query + session.execute

On Monday, April 9, 2018 at 7:35:14 PM UTC-4, Mike Bayer wrote: > > fetchall() gives you a list, how about that? the RowProxy acts just > like a tuple. > Thanks! That could work. I'll try some tests. The issue I ran into earlier is that some encoders inspect the `type`, and that throws

Re: [sqlalchemy] Re: standardizing sqlalchemy usage: session.query + session.execute

fetchall() gives you a list, how about that? the RowProxy acts just like a tuple. On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 6:57 PM, Jonathan Vanasco wrote: > I forgot to add, the current fix is this: > > # consume and coerce `ResultProxy[RowProxy,...]` into a list for > compatibility with

[sqlalchemy] Re: standardizing sqlalchemy usage: session.query + session.execute

I forgot to add, the current fix is this: # consume and coerce `ResultProxy[RowProxy,...]` into a list for compatibility with other functions results = [list(i) for i in results] this feels like I'm doing something wrong. -- SQLAlchemy - The Python SQL Toolkit and Object Relational