Re: Why automatic primary key is not UNSIGNED?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:11 PM, Alex Gaynor wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote: >> > >> > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set

Re: Why automatic primary key is not UNSIGNED?

On Mon, 2009-01-12 at 18:09 -0700, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote: > > > > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by > > default? > > Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be necessary or useful to >

Re: Why automatic primary key is not UNSIGNED?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Ian Kelly wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote: > > > > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by > > default? > > Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be

Re: Why automatic primary key is not UNSIGNED?

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:32 PM, V.Prudnikov wrote: > > Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by > default? Not sure. Is there any reason why it would be necessary or useful to prevent them from being negative? Ian

Why automatic primary key is not UNSIGNED?

Is there any reason why automatic primary key not set to UNSIGNED by default? When i tried to create manually primary key like that id = models.PositiveIntegerField(primary_key=True) it become as `id` integer UNSIGNED NOT NULL PRIMARY KEY, so it's not AUTO_INCREMENT now.

Re: Ticket 8638: Provide setting to disable e-mail sending

On Nov 28 2008, 10:19 pm, Tai Lee wrote: > I currently use my own versions of `send_mail` and `mail_*`, which > hijack the recipients if DEBUG is True. The idea being that I don't > want to send real emails to real recipients while developing, > debugging and testing.

Re: ForeignKey

Dos posibilidades: Existe un atributo que puedes definir en tus campos foreign key: employee= models.ForeignKey(Employee, verbose_name =_('* Employee'),related_name='employee_payroll', limit_choices_to = {'is_employee': True}) En la anterior linea, lo que hago es filtrar solo los empleados

Re: ForeignKey

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > > Aquí está una lista para preguntas en español: > http://groups.google.com/group/django-es > > Bueno, > Jeremy > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Patrick Taylor > wrote: > > > > Por favor,

Re: ForeignKey

ok Gracias --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

Re: ForeignKey

Aquí está una lista para preguntas en español: http://groups.google.com/group/django-es Bueno, Jeremy On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Patrick Taylor wrote: > > Por favor, disculpame por mi Español, msmtotti. > > Esta lista es dedicada a el developmento de Django

Re: ForeignKey

Por favor, disculpame por mi Español, msmtotti. Esta lista es dedicada a el developmento de Django mismo, la lista que tu quieres usar es Django-users donde te pueden ayudar con este tipo de problemas. On 12-Jan-09, at 4:04 PM, msmtotti wrote: > > Hola: > > Tengo una duda en mis

ForeignKey

Hola: Tengo una duda en mis models.py, tengo este codigo ** class Script(models.Model): """Clase Script""" nombre = models.CharField(max_length=30) descripcion = models.CharField(max_length=200) class

Rolling back tests -- status and open issues

One of the item on the list for 1.1 is "Run Django test cases inside a transaction". The ticket for this is #8138: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8138 and previous list discussion can be found here:

default_storage.location ignores MEDIA_ROOT under apache

Hi there, I first posted this to the user list but this now looks more and more like a bug -- please correct me if I am wrong. I am using a FileField to store user-uploaded files on the server. My setup works with the development server but raises a SuspiciousOperation error when I switch to

Signed Cookies Status

In light of the upcoming feature completion deadline for Django 1.1, I'd like to take a few minutes to mention where the signed cookies application stands right now and some of my thoughts about its inclusion in django.contrib. The code itself is done. I made a few minor updates to it last week

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Jan 12, 3:45 pm, "Jacob Kaplan-Moss" wrote: > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote: > > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in > > the lines

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 5:53 AM, mrts wrote: > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in > the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/ > into trunk ASAP, especially now that the dynamic workflow is really > gaining

Re: Order of models metaclass __new__ dict

Honza Král wrote: > use Field.creation_counter instead of self.__class__ Oh, yeah. Thank you, it works :-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email

Re: Order of models metaclass __new__ dict

You are using self.__class__ which is different for foo and bar (BooleanField), buzz (IntegerField) etc. use Field.creation_counter instead of self.__class__ Honza Král E-Mail: honza.k...@gmail.com ICQ#: 107471613 Phone: +420 606 678585 On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 3:15 PM, Jonas Haag

Re: Order of models metaclass __new__ dict

Alex Koshelev wrote: > I can write a short overview: >Each model field(or form field) is marked by special counter while > model(or form) is loading. Then in metaclass fields are sorted by that > counter. > > I've recently written the blog post about this staff but its in > Russian language.

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Karen Tracey wrote: > (There was a mini-sprint on Saturday? I missed the memo -- where are these > things being announced or was this just impromptu?) It was really just a handful of us in Lawrence getting together for the afternoon; those

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote: > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in > the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/ > into trunk ASAP #8138 is nearly done; there are still a couple of tricky

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:25 AM, James Bennett wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote: > > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in > > the lines of >

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:53 AM, mrts wrote: > What if we try to be nice to ourselves and get #8138 and something in > the lines of http://oebfare.com/blog/2008/mar/25/faster-django-test-suite/ > into trunk ASAP What if we pay attention to the work that's been done on that

Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

A proper "agile" workflow for distributed collaboration on a largeish chunk of functionality should be as follows: Feature developer: * implement tests for the features to be added * commit locally * implement the features * commit locally * run the test suite iteratively, fixing whatever the