Re: Ticket 8764 (Mixing args and **kwargs in reverse() function)

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 15:38 -0800, Killarny wrote: > The above ticket was opened a while back concerning the inability to > define views that use both positional arguments and keyword arguments > when expecting to use reverse() to match urls tied to those views. > > I don't understand the

Ticket 8764 (Mixing args and **kwargs in reverse() function)

The above ticket was opened a while back concerning the inability to define views that use both positional arguments and keyword arguments when expecting to use reverse() to match urls tied to those views. I don't understand the rational here for not fixing this issue. The decision not to allow

Re: ticket 8764 (Mixing args and **kwargs in reverse() function)

The above ticket was opened a while back concerning the inability to define views that use both positional arguments and keyword arguments when expecting to use reverse() to match urls tied to those views. I don't understand the rational here for not fixing this issue. The decision not to allow

Re: making some generic views more generic

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 11:01 -0800, Gabe wrote: > Hello, > > I really like the generic view feature of Django. It's been a handy > way to save a lot of work. Lately though, I've been finding myself > often wanting to display a list of objects filtered by some field. The > documentation suggests

Re: making some generic views more generic

Sorry, here is an example of item_list urlpatterns = patterns('', (r'^products/$', item_list,{ 'template_object_name' : 'product', 'queryset' : Product.objects.all() }), (r'^products/(?P\d+)/$', item_list,{

Re: Some tickets that should perhaps get looked at before 1.1

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 09:05 -0800, mrts wrote: > As the list seems to be resuming from holiday hibernation, I risk > causing another "don't you dare to push us" flame-bombing :) by > proposing that the following get looked at before 1.1: > > * `__import__(mod, {}, {}, [''])` causes double import

Re: #3566 Aggregations: Call for testing

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >>> The SQL command not properly ended appears to be the result of

Re: making some generic views more generic

I also would like to request another view. def item_list(request,queryset,extra_context={}, item_template=None,template_name=None, template_object_name='object',template_content_name='items',

Re: #3566 Aggregations: Call for testing

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >> The SQL command not properly ended appears to be the result of an annotate >> call followed by a call to aggregate(). I don't have a clue what

Re: CSRF / SafeForm

I added a ticket (with patch) for implementing the template tag: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9977 It also adds a CSRF context processor, which is used by the tag. The diff doesn't look quite right. There obviously needs to be an empty __init__.py file added to the templatetags folder

making some generic views more generic

Hello, I really like the generic view feature of Django. It's been a handy way to save a lot of work. Lately though, I've been finding myself often wanting to display a list of objects filtered by some field. The documentation suggests handling this by writing a small view that filters the

Re: Session-based messages (Contrib-05, #4604)

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Ramiro Morales wrote: > What directions do [the rest of the] core devs think should this > take?. I could try to work on getting things in shape > so it can approach a ready state for 1.1 a intially > planned. I'd like to see this moved into an

Re: #3566 Aggregations: Call for testing

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:52 PM, zvoase wrote: > > Just a question - how, if at all, is aggregation going to be supported > or worked around on custom field types? Do you have any particular fields in mind? Any custom field deriving from the basic Django numeric and date/time

Re: #3566 Aggregations: Call for testing

Well the queries themselves will execute fine, and then you will just back whatever type your database returned, you'll need to do some coercion yourself. Alex On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 4:52 AM, zvoase wrote: > > Just a question - how, if at all, is aggregation going to be

Re: #3566 Aggregations: Call for testing

Just a question - how, if at all, is aggregation going to be supported or worked around on custom field types? On Jan 6, 8:14 am, "Ian Kelly" wrote: > On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > > The one's that are a result of Oracle not