Re: [sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Kent
Never mind that last silly 0.7 question. (Your patch is compatible it seems.) (And pretend that you didn't hear any mention of 0.7) Thanks again for your awesome software! Kent On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 3:42:55 PM UTC-4, Kent wrote: > > >> dude!it is 2017. get on this client!

Re: [sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Kent
> > > dude!it is 2017. get on this client! :) I literally have to > maintain this feature for you personally :). > > > Hahaha! If you could only feel my pain! Unfortunately, there are multiple clients still on 8i because they are stuck on it due to their legacy application (which

Re: [sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Mike Bayer
https://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/issues/4076/oracle-8-non-ansi-joins-needs-to-apply-to On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:41 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: > this is also a bug. the operator here shouldn't matter for the "(+)" > operator to be added, that's easy to fix. (doing

Re: [sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Mike Bayer
this is also a bug. the operator here shouldn't matter for the "(+)" operator to be added, that's easy to fix. (doing it for 1.2 for now). On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Mike Bayer wrote: > On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Kent wrote: >>

Re: [sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Mike Bayer
On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 12:01 PM, Kent wrote: > I've got a strange relationship on a legacy Oracle 8i database which I need > to support (whether I like it or not). dude!it is 2017. get on this client! :) I literally have to maintain this feature for you

[sqlalchemy] use_ansi inconsistency with relationship's primaryjoin

2017-09-13 Thread Kent
I've got a strange relationship on a legacy Oracle 8i database which I need to support (whether I like it or not). The cleanest approach is specifying that the 'primaryjoin' to the relationship in the mapper should include an extra join clause. I hate doing this, but after many other