If you read the section on this:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/testing/overview/#test-case-serialized-rollback
the emulation is only performed if you set serialized_rollback = True on
the TestCase (as not all tests need this and it slows tests down by 3x, so
we decided to make it
Ticket claims this is fixed, but as I've moved my project to Django 1.7,
I've seen story from OP's mail repeat. My migrations create tables, then
populate them with data. Then tests that read this data from DB blurp with
"DoesNotExist".
> Any initial data loaded in migrations will only be
There's two balancing forces here - I don't want to delay the release as we
always do that, but then again we always make sure we ship correct, not on
time.
I'll investigate this as much as I can this week, and see if I can get the
dump-and-restore-to-fixture stuff working, as I think that's the
Hm, I’m not a core developer, but i wouldn’t prefer the documentation that
explains the edge cases.
As Russel Keith-Magee already said that Django is a tool that ensures quality.
We should definitly make a Ticket and try to clear that thing up before the 1.7
release. I mean this is not a new
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Yes, no matter what it's too late to add anything to 1.7, which is a
> massive shame - we'll have to just heavily document this for now, and then
> investigate the dump/load data stuff for the next cycle (I think it
Yes, the test suite is basically the biggest obstacle to full usage of
migrations - I've tried to make it see sense, but given my limited time at
the moment and the fact that it's a tortuous mess of hacks in places it
means that I can't see that happening before the RC.
I'd like to have started
I have been thinking that maybe we should delay #22340 (Legacy Table
Creation Methods Not Properly Deprecated) until 1.8 so that migrations
won't be required until Django 2.0. I'm not sure how feasible it is to
remove Django's test suite usage of it in the next week and a half, if we
are still
Are you thinking the next cycle would be 1.7.1 or 1.8?
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Yes, no matter what it's too late to add anything to 1.7, which is a
> massive shame - we'll have to just heavily document this for now, and then
> investigate
Yes, no matter what it's too late to add anything to 1.7, which is a
massive shame - we'll have to just heavily document this for now, and then
investigate the dump/load data stuff for the next cycle (I think it should
work everywhere initial_data did, at least, as they're both fixtures).
I will
On 04/19/2014 06:54 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
I agree we can just say that initial_data can be used as a fixture for
tests rather than being auto-loaded - and we could perhaps even put it
in the base testcase so it always auto-applied somehow - but that
doesn't get over the fact that you can't
I agree we can just say that initial_data can be used as a fixture for
tests rather than being auto-loaded - and we could perhaps even put it in
the base testcase so it always auto-applied somehow - but that doesn't get
over the fact that you can't rely on data migrations to set up your
database
2014-04-19 14:15 GMT+02:00 Anssi Kääriäinen :
> On 04/19/2014 10:52 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
>
> Getting dump-and-reload support for 1.7 seems hard, so from the above
>> options this leaves just 2) - not deprecating initial_data yet. Or we
>> need to find some other
Hi Marc.
Thanks for you explanation.
2014-04-19 13:46 GMT+02:00 Marc Tamlyn :
> Hi Andrey,
>
> There are limited use cases where initial data is a good idea. Examples
> might be where you have a list of countries for relating to or some other
> fixed set of data.
>
> The
On 04/19/2014 10:52 AM, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
Getting dump-and-reload support for 1.7 seems hard, so from the above
options this leaves just 2) - not deprecating initial_data yet. Or we
need to find some other solution not listed above.
Hmmh, there is actually a pretty straightforward upgrade
Hi Andrey,
There are limited use cases where initial data is a good idea. Examples
might be where you have a list of countries for relating to or some other
fixed set of data.
The idea is that now instead if having a hard to maintain fixture for that
table, you populate it with a data migration
Hi Christian.
But, as far as I know, data migrations are "some logic" for translate data
from old scheme to new scheme and initial_data are files for load intial
data. I do not see where they could serve for the same purpose. Is really
confusing.
Personally, putting initial data of my
hm, at first i didn't even read the release notes..
But i think we should definitly make a blocker issue in trac.
Currently re-introduce initial_data is the worst thing we could do, since
django 1.9 requires migrations and do deprecate that behavior:
> Deprecated since version 1.7: If an
Hi!
At this time I haven't touched the new migrations system for django. But
now, reading the releases notes and this thread...
I don't understand how data migrations can replace initial_data, are two
things completely different and they have completely different scope. I'm
slightly confusing.
On 04/18/2014 07:41 PM, Andrew Godwin wrote:
Ah yes, flushing, I forgot we did that for lesser DBs.
I can think of several solutions:
- Run the entire migration set every time you flush the database.
This is, obviously, not practicable.
- Re-introduce initial_data fixtures; I'd rather not,
The first solution is definitly the worst, if you make integration tests
you already have a "long running" test suite (especially with over 20-30
models).
initial_data fixtures having a problem, if you change your database the
initial_data will change over time, which is somehow bad to
Ah yes, flushing, I forgot we did that for lesser DBs.
I can think of several solutions:
- Run the entire migration set every time you flush the database. This is,
obviously, not practicable.
- Re-introduce initial_data fixtures; I'd rather not, as these require
constant upkeep and interact
The case is really simple and i think its definitely that would block the
release.
First off, I have a model:
from django.db import models
# Create your models here.
class SimpleModel(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=10)
Then I will make some migrations:
# encoding: utf8
The problem might be that initial data is loaded after each database
flush, but the same isn't true for migrations. If we want to have RunSQL
as a complete replacement for initial data, then we need to have some
way to mark data loading "migrations" to be loaded after each database
flush. Of
Hi Christian,
Can you explain your situation more, and perhaps give us some example files
or console output? When you run tests they should run through all the
migrations first, so any initial data should get loaded in before tests
begin.
Andrew
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 1:16 PM, Christian
24 matches
Mail list logo