Re: Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread schinckel
It isn't 'enforced' by Python at a language level, but as dmoisset stated, it makes the failure messages actually make sense: "Expected 'foo', got 'bar'". (paraphrasing failure message: don't have any failing tests to look at right now. YAY! :) Matt. > -- You received this message

Re: Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread Alex Gaynor
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Russell Keith-Magee < russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Moisset > wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Florian Apolloner < > f.apollo...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >>

Re: Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread Russell Keith-Magee
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Daniel Moisset wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Florian Apolloner > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> a) Does this matter at all? I mean what's the difference? You ask if they >> are equal and if not you get an

Re: is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread Gabriel Hurley
+1 on deprecating databrowse. Dead code should be excised. As for webdesign, why not roll the one piece in it (the marginally-useful lorem tag) into the main library and deprecate the hook in contrib? -0 on deprecating formtools. For the sake of argument I could see admindocs being deprecated

Re: is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread Markus Gattol
> > +0 on webdesign, since it's functionality that's probably in transient > use by the more invisible members of our community. If it were more > fleshed out, I'd say leave it, but since it's just that single > function, it should probably go eventually. > I'd miss it even though it's just a

Re: Re-opening 5617?

2011-09-20 Thread Carl Meyer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Tom, Thanks for bringing this to the list. On 09/20/2011 10:32 AM, Tom Christie wrote: > I recently bumped into the same issue as reported in #5617 > . (And duplicate #6377 >

Re: Semantics when calling select_related repeatedly

2011-09-20 Thread Carl Meyer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/20/2011 10:29 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > Currently, calling select_related causes the QS to forget previously > added fields. Also, it seems that depth calls are not forgotten. > > For example, cribbing from the tests here: >

Re: confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-20 Thread Julien Phalip
On 20 September 2011 14:16, Carl Meyer wrote: > On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:26:22 PM UTC-6, jdunck wrote: > > Well, I meant to mark accepted as endorsement of the patch, but that > > made me owner. > > Yeah, this is confusing in our Trac UI. The "accept" radio button at

Re: confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-20 Thread Jeremy Dunck
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Carl Meyer wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:26:22 PM UTC-6, jdunck wrote: >> Well, I meant to mark accepted as endorsement of the patch, but that >> made me owner. > >> I can't own

Re: confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-20 Thread Paul McMillan
> I'd be in favor of just removing that "accept" radio button if it isn't > hard to do; doesn't do anything you can't do with the "reassign" option, > just gets confused with the triage state. This is a good idea. I made the same mistakes as a new contributor. > >> I can't own it since I'm not a

Re: is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread Justin Holmes
It depends how surgical this discussion is; if we're at the model level, then it's pretty clear that we need to reinvent auth.User and deprecate functionality accordingly. I'm not hearing anyone say that contrib.auth is an undesired battery tout court, but the sentiment that it fails to "get out

confusing things in Trac UI (was: Design decision for #1625...)

2011-09-20 Thread Carl Meyer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday, September 20, 2011 1:26:22 PM UTC-6, jdunck wrote: > Well, I meant to mark accepted as endorsement of the patch, but that > made me owner. Yeah, this is confusing in our Trac UI. The "accept" radio button at the bottom assigns the ticket

Re: is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread Carl Meyer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 09/20/2011 06:13 AM, ptone wrote: > At DjangoCon.us there was positive reception to Jacob's thoughts that > Django core could be leaner - people liked the kernel analogy. > > Talk of reducing contrib has been around a long time. > > Per policy,

Re: Design decision for #1625 - Adding traceback to return value from send_robust when error occurs

2011-09-20 Thread Jeremy Dunck
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Jim D. wrote: > Awesome, great suggestions both. That's a cleaner API and the implementation > itself is even slightly cleaner. > I updated the patch and uploaded it to the ticket. If you or anyone else > wants to review it and ideally move

Re: Design decision for #1625 - Adding traceback to return value from send_robust when error occurs

2011-09-20 Thread Jim D.
Awesome, great suggestions both. That's a cleaner API and the implementation itself is even slightly cleaner. I updated the patch and uploaded it to the ticket. If you or anyone else wants to review it and ideally move it forward, that would be excellent. Thanks! -- You received this message

Re: Semantics when calling select_related repeatedly

2011-09-20 Thread Javier Guerra Giraldez
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 11:29 AM, Jeremy Dunck wrote: > It seems to me that calling .select_related should be additive +1 -- Javier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to

Re: Design decision for #1625 - Adding traceback to return value from send_robust when error occurs

2011-09-20 Thread Jeremy Dunck
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Jim D. wrote: > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16245 I've looked at the patch and it seems good to me. I have a suggestion: Rather than (receiver, err, traceback), why not (receiver, exc_info) where exc_info is the triple returned

Re-opening 5617?

2011-09-20 Thread Tom Christie
Hi All, I recently bumped into the same issue as reported in #5617. (And duplicate #6377 .) IE: Django's default 500 view uses a Context, not a RequestContext, which means any 500 templates which uses

Semantics when calling select_related repeatedly

2011-09-20 Thread Jeremy Dunck
Currently, calling select_related causes the QS to forget previously added fields. Also, it seems that depth calls are not forgotten. For example, cribbing from the tests here: https://code.djangoproject.com/browser/django/trunk/tests/modeltests/select_related/tests.py#L129 If this:

Design decision for #1625 - Adding traceback to return value from send_robust when error occurs

2011-09-20 Thread Jim D.
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/16245 Here's the quick summary: send_robust() as you know is a special case of send() in the signals framework, which wraps each signal trigger in a try/except block so that an exception in one signal doesn't prevent the rest from firing. This is great,

Re: ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Tom Evans
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Roald de Vries wrote: > > I don't see how this is different from the create method on the intermediary > model. > > Cheers, Roald > > PS: I found an open ticket on this, > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9475 > Here is the function

Re: ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Johannes Dollinger
Am 20.09.2011 um 15:57 schrieb Łukasz Rekucki: > On 20 September 2011 15:52, Roald de Vries wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Is there a fundamental reason that I'm missing (other than "nobody's taken >> the trouble of writing it") that I can't do the following? If there isn't >>

Re: ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Roald de Vries
On Sep 20, 2011, at 4:23 PM, Stephan Jaensch wrote: Am 20.09.2011 um 15:52 schrieb Roald de Vries: Is there a fundamental reason that I'm missing (other than "nobody's taken the trouble of writing it") that I can't do the following? If there isn't I'll create a ticket for it. class

Re: ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Stephan Jaensch
Hi Roald, Am 20.09.2011 um 15:52 schrieb Roald de Vries: > Hi all, > > Is there a fundamental reason that I'm missing (other than "nobody's taken > the trouble of writing it") that I can't do the following? If there isn't > I'll create a ticket for it. > >class R(Model): >user =

Re: is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread Jannis Leidel
On 20.09.2011, at 14:13, ptone wrote: > At DjangoCon.us there was positive reception to Jacob's thoughts that > Django core could be leaner - people liked the kernel analogy. > > Talk of reducing contrib has been around a long time. > > Per policy, it takes 3 minor versions to remove something

Re: ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Łukasz Rekucki
On 20 September 2011 15:52, Roald de Vries wrote: > Hi all, > > Is there a fundamental reason that I'm missing (other than "nobody's taken > the trouble of writing it") that I can't do the following? If there isn't > I'll create a ticket for it. > >    class R(Model): >        

ManyRelatedManager with explicit intermediary model

2011-09-20 Thread Roald de Vries
Hi all, Is there a fundamental reason that I'm missing (other than "nobody's taken the trouble of writing it") that I can't do the following? If there isn't I'll create a ticket for it. class R(Model): user = ForeignKey(User) my_model = ForeignKey('MyModel')

Re: Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread Daniel Moisset
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 8:23 AM, Florian Apolloner wrote: > Hi, > > a) Does this matter at all? I mean what's the difference? You ask if they > are equal and if not you get an error ;) > Other xUnit framework actually show an error message explicit about it, saying

is it time to start deprecating parts of contrib

2011-09-20 Thread ptone
At DjangoCon.us there was positive reception to Jacob's thoughts that Django core could be leaner - people liked the kernel analogy. Talk of reducing contrib has been around a long time. Per policy, it takes 3 minor versions to remove something from Django - near as I can tell, a

Re: Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread Calvin Spealman
On Sep 20, 2011 5:18 AM, "James Pic" wrote: > > Hello everybody, > > Sorry if this topic has already been brought, I asked about it on IRC but nobody answered. > > Being a old user of xUnit patterns in several languages, i just figured that there might be a mistake in django

Django test documentation example not respecting xUnit convention

2011-09-20 Thread James Pic
Hello everybody, Sorry if this topic has already been brought, I asked about it on IRC but nobody answered. Being a old user of xUnit patterns in several languages, i just figured that there might be a mistake in django testing documentation example. The example is: