Hi Aymeric,
Your message seems to be confusing the queryset API with the model-instance
API. Details below.
On Sunday 31 January 2016 21:24:17 Aymeric Augustin wrote:
>
> 1) Ignore some fields on updates
>
> Django already provides three ways to do this:
>
>
I've done the initial work for a patch, assuming a 'hard' change without
deprecation path, the branch is
here:
https://github.com/sergei-maertens/django/commit/2f3c1d8dd56522dc69448ec20aac28d4ddc70ac4.
Tests should be passing.
I've also taken a quick glance at django-admin-tools to check if
Hello Owais,
I had flagged this for review but it didn’t make it to the top of my list until
today, sorry.
The current approach adds 7 new APIs that only target the use case exposed in
the ticket, which I find rather narrow. Some of these APIs (ignore_delegated)
only exist to work around the
Hi Markus, Adam,
I looked to Django admin documentation (
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/ref/contrib/admin/). I don't see
anything discouraging from such usage, but rather I see encouraging for
usage as interface for content managers:
"One of the most powerful parts of Django is the
Hi,
At YPlan we've hacked in view permissions to the admin, exactly because of
the reasons Markus talked about - it's the front end we've built for
employees, done rather than building a proper process-based interface. I
think it could just about be done in a third-party package (It might rely
Tim, I assumed the explanation and discussion on the ticket would be
enough. I'll write it up if I find some time next week.
Thanks
On Saturday, January 23, 2016 at 2:39:45 AM UTC+5:30, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> It would be helpful if you could sketch out the proposal a bit more --
> maybe write
Same for us. It takes slightly longer because of some custom checks, but
it's still under a second.
Dne nedelja, 31. januar 2016 10.23.30 UTC+1 je oseba Adam Johnson napisala:
>
> Y'all know my position (original author). How long are the checks taking
> for people? We have a very large project
Just to play devil's advocate... you're all worrying about one simple case;
there are infinite variants of it with subtle bugs, for example imagine the
same situation but with *Value*:
Whatever.object.filter(is_active=Value('false'))
The ORM can't predict the type of a *Value* call - pretty
Might be problematic for third-party cache backends which implement
*has_key* and rely on *__contains__* calling it - don't see how you can
show the warning in that case.
On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 12:34:14 PM UTC, Tim Graham wrote:
>
> Yes, but dict.has_key() is removed in Python 3. If
Y'all know my position (original author). How long are the checks taking
for people? We have a very large project with >100 models, ~30 apps, and it
still takes less than a second.
On Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 12:15:59 PM UTC+1, Žan Anderle wrote:
>
> Adam: I don't think they should be
10 matches
Mail list logo
