Re: Integrate dj-database-url into Django

Hi Raphael, thanks for picking this up. Looking at the history here, particularly the discussion here https://groups.google.com/g/django-developers/c/UQjpzB39JN0/m/XGqdV8nbBwAJ but there are others, the reason this hasn't already happened is that if we're going to merge this into core it would be

Async wrappers in contrib packages

Hey everyone, Sorry if I'm not following correct protocol on this or if this has already been discussed elsewhere, but is there any consensus about (or needed for) creating async versions of contrib packages? My personal interest in this is about django.contrib.auth (login, authenticate,

Re: Potential way forward for DATABASE_URL

Hi Raphael, Thanks for taking this on. Starting with a limited scope seems like a good idea to me. A couple other things I like about this approach: - It tackles cache URLs at the same time (it makes sense for them to mirror one another, IMO). - No implicit usage of DATABASE_URL, but as you

Re: Potential way forward for DATABASE_URL

Am 27.11.22 um 13:51 schrieb Raphael G: So my ask here: how do people feel about moving forward with this limited scope? Previous discussions talked about wanting a larger scope for it to get merged into core. I believe that instead targetting a smaller scope means we can at least provide a

Potential way forward for DATABASE_URL

Some base industry background. It's a pretty common convention to share credentials in environment variables. For many PaaS, it's common to use connection URLs to do so. So DATABASE_URL will have a URL like postgres://my_user:mypassword@somedomain/database stuffed into a single environment

Re: Integrate dj-database-url into Django

Alright, I tried to revive Tom Forbe's work on this in https://github.com/django/django/pull/16331 My honest feeling here is that if Django existed just for me, I would really just want to get this pulled in as an option, and trying to increase the scope beyond "given a URL, get a dictionary

Re: Using comment in Django

Thank you, Adam. I really appreciate your help. Best On Saturday, November 26, 2022 at 10:16:45 PM UTC+3 Adam Johnson wrote: > Hi! > > I think you've found the wrong mailing list for this post. This mailing > list is for discussing the development of Django itself, not for support > using

Re: Combining multiple aggregations with annotate()

Hi Simon, In addition to what's documented, that's another way annotate() gives the wrong result. There are a lot of duplicates of #10060, and there are a lot of people who run into this issue. Given the age of the ticket and the lack of a simple backward compatible solution, what would be

Re: Calling save_m2m() in UserCreationForm.save()

Hi Adam, thanks for the reply. I'll open a ticket and start work on a PR. Mark On Sunday, November 27, 2022 at 10:47:01 AM UTC Adam Johnson wrote: > Your proposal seems reasonable - if actually saving, we should save the > m2m fields too. > > I think the best next step would be to file a

Re: Calling save_m2m() in UserCreationForm.save()

Your proposal seems reasonable - if actually saving, we should save the m2m fields too. I think the best next step would be to file a ticket and work on a PR. The first step would be to add a test case reproducing the issue. On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 4:59 PM Mark Gensler wrote: > Hello all! > >