Continuing my investigation I got the a following which does not work but
should:
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
from django.test import TransactionTestCase
from django.db import transaction
class FooTest(TransactionTestCase):
def test_bar(self):
with transaction.atomic
The documentation states that "you cannot test that a block of code is
executing within a transaction" while I am looking to "test a block of code
that has a transaction".
In any case, the issue here is that "transaction.atomic" does not work when
neste
tials()
>
> I am testing that my permission routines work by creating a user,
> assigning permissions to the user, retrieving the view and analyzing it.
> That "assign_role" call of django-role-permissions uses
> "transaction.atomic". Which, of c
ot; call of django-role-permissions uses "transaction.atomic".
Which, of course, I would not want to change, as this is an external
library.
So I can't really remove usages of "transaction.atomic"
On Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 9:48:21 AM UTC+3, Aldian Fazrihady wrote:
there must be many django app code that has
`transaction.atomic` inside it, I never need to add `transaction.atomic` in
my unit test code.
If I need to simulate initial state by having some data inserted to
database, I did that either using factoryboy or django ORM framework, but I
see no point
While this can be done in my code, there are libraries that the project use
that have "transaction.atomic" in them. For example, pretty popular
django-role-permissions.
>From what I see in the documentation, there should be no problem to use
transactions within transaction
I don't think the subclass of TestCase need to use transaction.atomic. Why
can't you just remove the transaction.atomic?
Regards,
Aldian Fazrihady
http://aldianfazrihady.com
Pada tanggal Sel, 12 Mei 2020 04.02, Uri Kogan menulis:
> Hello,
>
> I am using TestCase and trying to create
Hello,
I am using TestCase and trying to create an object during test.
There is a log activated on MySQL server, so I see all the queries being
executed there.
This "transaction.atomic" sets a SAVEPOINT in the database thinking that
the transaction is already started. T
And TL;DR; versio.
Code which is wrapped within atomic transaction will guarantee that if code
breaks changes are rolled back.
ma 23. syysk. 2019 klo 15.42 Aryan Patel kirjoitti:
> Hi colleagues,
>
> I want to understand if transaction.atomic() in django guarantees that the
> clien
no, atomic transactions are just for the database. It has nothing to do
with a client, just the integrity of a data commit.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
Hi colleagues,
I want to understand if transaction.atomic() in django guarantees that the
client is getting status what the django is sending?
This question is just for discussion whether the django builds a pipeline
with the client and if the network broke down while the django is sending
return attrs
else:
raise serializers.ValidationError("No seat value provided.")
On the view, I am using *@transaction.atomic()* to make sure the ticket/s
are created only if all of them are valid, or don't create ANY ticket if
not valid.
@transaction.atomic(
to handle smaller units of transactiond.
13.6.2017 17.52 "Alex Krupp" <alex.kr...@gmail.com> kirjoitti:
The Django documentation gives a warning
<https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.11/topics/db/transactions/#controlling-transactions-explicitly>
to avoid catching errors ins
The Django documentation gives a warning
<https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.11/topics/db/transactions/#controlling-transactions-explicitly>
to avoid catching errors inside transaction.atomic() blocks, and to use
nested transactions if you need to do so. But in the case where we have
@transaction.atomic will only look at the default database. Since you're
using multiple ones I think you want something like:
@transaction.atomic(using=DB1)
@transaction.atomic(using=DB2)
def process_all():
#
On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Lene Preuss <lene.pre...@gmail.com>
Hi,
I want to write a large number of model instances to DB, in a
multi-database setup. The way I am doing this is essentially:
@transaction.atomic
def process_all():
for record in Model.objects.using(DB1).all():
process_one(record)
def process_one(record):
do_something_with
> On Thursday, February 27, 2014 12:13:28 PM UTC+5:30, Anssi Kääriäinen
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:58:54 PM UTC+2, tapan pandita wrote:
>>>
>>> I am using transaction.atomic as a context manager for transactions in
>>> django 1.
gt;> I am using transaction.atomic as a context manager for transactions in
>> django 1.6. There is a block of code which I want to be in a transaction
>> which has a couple of network calls and some database writes. I am seeing
>> very weird behaviour. Every once in while (may
On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:58:54 PM UTC+2, tapan pandita wrote:
>
> I am using transaction.atomic as a context manager for transactions in
> django 1.6. There is a block of code which I want to be in a transaction
> which has a couple of network calls and some database
I am using transaction.atomic as a context manager for transactions in
django 1.6. There is a block of code which I want to be in a transaction
which has a couple of network calls and some database writes. I am seeing
very weird behaviour. Every once in while (maybe 1 in 20 times) I have
noticed
20 matches
Mail list logo
