Re: Model.objects.raw() (#11863)

On Oct 2, 5:42 pm, "Sean O'Connor" wrote: > To be honest this seems like something which would be a lot of work with > relatively little gain.  For this to work raw() would need to change from a > relatively simple bit of code which doesn't need to touch all of the

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

2009/10/2 Javier Guerra > > > - if there's no 'failure record' run all > - if there's some record, first test those that have failed the last time > - if they still fail, stop there > - if there's no further failures, rerun the whole set > > +1, that sounds like a good

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

> - if there's no 'failure record' run all > - if there's some record, first test those that have failed the last time >   - if they still fail, stop there >   - if there's no further failures, rerun the whole set That's a pretty cool idea. I haven't seen this kind of behavior before but it

Override icontains filter option

Hi, I need to change the normal behavior for icontains filter option (for django-firebird backend implementation). For icontains filter, django add automatically an '%' but, for case insensitive search, firebird uses the CONTAINING statement which doesn't need % Then, the question is, which

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:10 AM, Harro wrote: > > Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break > another one? while testing, when i found some not-obvious test failure and i have to run the test repeatedly, i try to run just this one until it passes.

Re: Model.objects.raw() (#11863)

To be honest this seems like something which would be a lot of work with relatively little gain. For this to work raw() would need to change from a relatively simple bit of code which doesn't need to touch all of the complex query code in the ORM to a complex bit of code which needs to deeply

Re: Model.objects.raw() (#11863)

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:35 PM, mrts wrote: > > Wishful thinking follows. > > It would be awesome if one could mix ordinary QuerySet methods > with raw() (or, rather, raw_extra(), see below for that). While I can see what you're aiming at here, I'm not really a fan of the

Re: Model.objects.raw() (#11863)

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 6:54 AM, SeanOC wrote: > > Hello All, > > During the Djangocon sprints I started to work on a patch which would > add a nicer interface for dealing with raw SQL queries.  While there I > talked to RKM about where it should fit into the ORM API

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break another one? On Sep 29, 6:03 pm, Rob Madole wrote: > I've been using nose for our tests, and one of the features that I > really like is the ability to run the tests again but filter only the > ones that

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

On Oct 2, 12:09 pm, Ned Batchelder wrote: > I would think the same logic applies to Django.  Nose needs to work with > lots of different projects, so they can't own the Django details, since > by that logic they'd also own the TurboGears logic, the Pylons logic, > the

Re: Model.objects.raw() (#11863)

Wishful thinking follows. It would be awesome if one could mix ordinary QuerySet methods with raw() (or, rather, raw_extra(), see below for that). Assuming the following models: class Foo(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=255) class FooDates(models.Model): foo =

Subclassing db fields: to_python() need model instance

Hi, I want to subclass a db field (CharField), but in the to_python() method I need the value (which is given) and the model instance (which is missing). I looked at the source of django/db/models/fields/subclassing.py:

Re: Adding an option to re-test only failed tests

Rob Madole wrote: >> From the point of view of encouraging the usage of nose, either would >> work fine. I think this is fits in to the conversation at DjangoCon >> about how we should go about encouraging Django users to explore the >> wider Python ecosystem. The important thing is that we can