Thanks. That fixed what I was seeing.
Paul Kippes
On Apr 29, 1:49 pm, jason kirtland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Paul K wrote:
> > The following code duplicates a situation I'm seeing with the
> > association proxy. There are at least two ways I can avoid having the
> > error happen. But since I wasn't sure if the error is a usage error,
> > I wanted to post here first before implementing my work around. One
> > work around for the test code is to delete/comment out line 77
> > (commented as such).
> > I understand why I'm seeing the error. But should the user really be
> > required to keep the parent around in a variable? I would have
> > thought that the session would be tracking each successive changes.
>
> This is fixed in the trunk @ r4593. The issue was in association
> proxy's handling of a stale cache attribute it stashes on instances and
> was fundamentally:
>
> p_copy = copy.copy(parent)
> del parent
> p_copy.kids.append(a_kid) # previously, boom
>
> That's similar to what was going under the orm hood with the modified
> instances coming in and out of scope in have_a_kid.
>
> The patch in the trunk is pretty small, but if that's not an option you
> can work around the issue somewhat painfully by removing the cache
> attribute from instances:
>
> for attr in dir(p_copy):
> if attr.startswith('_AssociationProxy_kid_associations_'):
> delattr(p_copy, attr)
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sqlalchemy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
