#19777: Casting a SimpleLazyObject to an int fails
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: mattrobenolt | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: closed
Component: Core (Other) | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: wontfix
Keywords: functional | Triage Stage:
simplelazyobject | Unreviewed
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by jacob):
* status: new => closed
* needs_better_patch: => 0
* resolution: => wontfix
* needs_tests: => 0
* needs_docs: => 0
Comment:
Closing after IRC discussion:
{{{
jacobkm: mattrobenolt: I'm a bit confused: why are you passing a user into
something that expects an int?
jacobkm: I don't think it really has anything to do with the lazy object;
if you did that with a non-lazy object you'd just get something like "
int() argument must be a string or a number, not 'User'"
mattrobenolt: jacobkm: So we've been staring at this.
mattrobenolt: There's a bug in our code which causes us to pass in an
AnonymousUser to our filter.
mattrobenolt: Which uncovered the SimpleLazyObject bug.
mattrobenolt: Inside Django's RelatedField._pk_trace, it's looking for a
model's pk to get around the coersion.
mattrobenolt: If it's an Anonymous user, there is none of that, so it
fails ugly.
mattrobenolt: So I guess we've uncovered a couple issues. 1) A bug in our
code.
mattrobenolt: 2) A bug in coercing any SimpleLazyObject to an int with
__int__.
mattrobenolt: 3) Should passing an AnonymousUser to a filter yield a
better error?
jacobkm: I'd say no to 3 since that would basically require special-casing
AnonymousUser somewhere nasty.
mattrobenolt: I agree on that.
jacobkm: I'm trying to think through why you'd need __int__ on the lazy
object. It's not really a public API, it's just used within Django in a
few places, and we never need it in an int context.
jacobkm: So I'm inclined to say "no"
mattrobenolt: Yeah, after uncovering our bug, it wouldn't have solved it
since it's still a bug on our end.
mattrobenolt: Err, that didn't make much sense, but yeah.
mattrobenolt: I'm trying to think of a better way to solve this. At least
in terms of a better error message.
mattrobenolt: Because this was terrible to track down considering we
pinned it on that. :)
fhahn left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
jacobkm: Yeah I think I'm gonna close this; if you come up with a way to
make better error messages I'm all about that.
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/19777#comment:1>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
