#29381: Move some parts of `django.contrib.auth.models` to
`django.contrib.auth.base_user` for reusability
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Reporter: Sagar Chalise | Owner: nobody
Type: Uncategorized | Status: closed
Component: Uncategorized | Version: 2.0
Severity: Normal | Resolution: needsinfo
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------+--------------------------------------
Changes (by Carlton Gibson):
* cc: Carlton Gibson (added)
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => needsinfo
Old description:
> This is more of an idea than bug but most of the time when need to use
> authentication without using `contrib.auth` one needs to rewrite some of
> the parts that can be reused if it were in base_user when the interface
> is similar to django.contrib.auth.
> I am mostly talking about update_last_login function and AnonymousUser
> when custom user is derived from AbstractBaseUser.
>
> May be create AnonymousBaseUser with parts that are compatible to
> AbstractBaseUser in `base_user.py` and use that as base class for
> AnonymousUser. Also, update_last_login function can be moved to
> `base_user.py` so that it can be reused.
New description:
----
This is more of an idea than bug but most of the time when need to use
authentication without using `contrib.auth` one needs to rewrite some of
the parts that can be reused if it were in base_user when the interface is
similar to django.contrib.auth.
I am mostly talking about update_last_login function and AnonymousUser
when custom user is derived from AbstractBaseUser.
May be create AnonymousBaseUser with parts that are compatible to
AbstractBaseUser in `base_user.py` and use that as base class for
AnonymousUser. Also, update_last_login function can be moved to
`base_user.py` so that it can be reused.
--
Comment:
Hi Sagar. Thanks for the input.
I'm going to close this as `needsinfo` as is. The general idea is ''Yeah,
possibly'' but it's too vague to be actionable in its current form.
If you want to push this forwards then I would recommend an exploratory
PR: make some (small) changes; what tests break?; what does it allow you
to do?; etc. From there we've got something concrete to assess. Does that
make sense?
Please feel free to re-open this issue if you come up with something
concrete along these lines!
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29381#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].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/070.223b7ce7f581b982b1fb28b747976570%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
