Flask-SQLAlchemy sets the Session to autoflush=False. That's pretty much the difference here, and "lazy='dynamic'" works poorly with this setting. There is sort of a bug-like behavior I can pull out of it here where I see the history is getting set incorrectly, as I suspected, and I should look into that.
But for now just flushing within the get_or_create() step (or setting autoflush=True, or not using lazy='dynamic') will resolve this issue: @classmethod def get_or_create(cls, trove): try: sess.flush() obj = sess.query(cls).filter_by(trove=trove).one() except NoResultFound: obj = cls(trove) return obj On Dec 15, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Donald Stufft wrote: > Fooled around with this some more. And i'm pretty sure it's got to be > something with Flask-SQLAlchemy now. I spent a few hours futzing with the > test case and was unable to make it do anything, but as soon as I switched it > to Flask-SQLAlchemy (https://gist.github.com/7f15df7a2d20d9736fed) The > IntegrityError came back. So now I have a new place to go bother to figure > out why :) > > On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:12:26 AM UTC-5, Donald Stufft wrote: > Ugh nevermind me. It's late and I forgot to name the Index :/ > > On Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:06:28 AM UTC-5, Donald Stufft wrote: > So it appears the problem is with UniqueConstraint vs Index(..., unique=True). > > Test case: https://gist.github.com/4291461 > > On Friday, December 14, 2012 11:43:19 PM UTC-5, Michael Bayer wrote: > its probably some subtlety to the data that's already loaded and how the > collection is being mutated - it's unlikely Flask has anything to do with it. > There may or may not be some less-than-ideal or buggy behavior in > association proxy, or it might be a premature flushing issue, but if you can > come up with how to reproduce that would be very helpful. > > > On Dec 14, 2012, at 11:38 PM, Donald Stufft wrote: > >> Hrm. I'll see what I can do. Though looking at what you posted it works for >> me with that too.. So the problem must either be with Flask-SQLAlchemy or >> with my own app code. >> >> On Friday, December 14, 2012 11:30:57 PM UTC-5, Michael Bayer wrote: >> I've cobbled together a complete and simplified test case given your mapping >> and example code and I cannot reproduce with either 0.7 or 0.8 - the count >> of rows in the association table is one on the first commit, and two on the >> second. >> >> You need to adapt the attached test case into a full reproducing case so >> that the specific trigger is illustrated...thanks. >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "sqlalchemy" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/-/Xn2eZ0gifLgJ. >> To post to this group, send email to sqlal...@googlegroups.com. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> sqlalchemy+...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sqlalchemy" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sqlalchemy/-/w7AbNMBU6VIJ. > To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en. -- 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 sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy?hl=en.