On 4/20/15 12:56 PM, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
I just tested, the problem is still present in the current master
(bd61e7a3287079cf742f4df698bfe3628c090522 from github). Guido W.
can you please try current master at least as of
a3af638e1a95d42075e25e874746, thanks.
--
You received this
Hey original developer pyfarm-master here, Guido pointed me at this thread.
I've run a test with a3af638e1a95d42075e25e874746 and the sqlite tests are
still failing to drop the tables:
https://travis-ci.org/pyfarm/pyfarm-master/builds/59341150
Since Guido commented however I merged a PR he
Hi,
Have there been any non-backwards-compatible changes in SQLAlchemy 1.0
compared to 0.9.9?
We are seeing a lot of sudden breakage in our unit tests when switching to
SQLAlchemy 1.0 from 0.9.9. Tests that worked fine before suddenly fail
across the board.
Here's a an example of a test
On Apr 20, 2015, at 12:56 PM, Guido Winkelmann
gu...@ambient-entertainment.de wrote:
On Monday 20 April 2015 11:23:06 Mike Bayer wrote:
On 4/20/15 8:09 AM, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
[...]
On sqlite, drop_all() seems to fail to get the order of table drops
right, and consequently runs
On Monday 20 April 2015 11:23:06 Mike Bayer wrote:
On 4/20/15 8:09 AM, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
[...]
On sqlite, drop_all() seems to fail to get the order of table drops
right, and consequently runs into a referential integrity error.
If you can post a reproducible issue, that's what I can work
On 4/20/15 8:09 AM, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
Have there been any non-backwards-compatible changes in SQLAlchemy 1.0
compared to 0.9.9?
Most behavioral changes are listed out at
http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_1_0/changelog/migration_10.html; I've
urged everyone to please read through
On 4/20/15 8:09 AM, Guido Winkelmann wrote:
Hi,
Have there been any non-backwards-compatible changes in SQLAlchemy 1.0
compared to 0.9.9?
We are seeing a lot of sudden breakage in our unit tests when
switching to SQLAlchemy 1.0 from 0.9.9. Tests that worked fine before
suddenly fail
Thanks for the detailed response. I didn't think to look to Red Hat's to see if
they backported security fixes, so that's good to know.
As for the undefined behavior with respect to less-than idiomatic programming,
I think that's something we'll definitely need to keep in mind and hopefully be
