Re: Do people actually squash migrations?

On Wed, 12 May 2021 at 18:40, 'Mike Lissner' via Django developers (Contributions to Django itself) wrote: > Oh, I guess there's also a step in the manual process to reset the migrations > table in the DB, but I don't know how to do that. Tricky stuff! I've made a management command for that:

Re: Removal of USE_L10N setting

On Tue, 15 Jun 2021 at 12:25, Carlton Gibson wrote: > I have to say, I never once set `USE_L10N = False` — I don't imagine many > people do, but my only concern would be whole swaths of folks that depend on > this… — do such exist in numbers? 樂 I don't think I've ever set USE_L10N to True, and

Re: Bug in migrations when testing on Django 3.2b1

configs, and the best way to do that is probably running "django.apps.apps.app_configs.items()", and compare what the version you're upgrading from says and what 3.2 returns. On Fri, 19 Mar 2021 at 08:42, Hanne Moa wrote: > > Reverting didn't see to do anything but I'll spread around

Re: Bug in migrations when testing on Django 3.2b1

rsday, 18 March 2021 at 15:26:23 UTC+1 HM wrote: >> >>> Changing AppConfig.name to just "app" leads to ModuleNotFoundError: No >>> module named 'app'. >>> >>> Changing the path in INSTALLED_APPS to "p

Re: Bug in migrations when testing on Django 3.2b1

Changing AppConfig.name to just "app" leads to ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'app'. Changing the path in INSTALLED_APPS to "prefix.app.apps.AppConfig" instead leads to the same NodeNotFoundError as before. On Thu, 18 Mar 2021 at 15:06, Hanne Moa wrote: > &

Bug in migrations when testing on Django 3.2b1

I have some migrations that runs/tests fine on Django 3.0 and 3.1, but not on 3.2b1. There's a specific app whose migrations fail with: django.db.migrations.exceptions.NodeNotFoundError: Migration prefix_app.000N_fooFoo dependencies reference nonexistent parent node ('app', '000M_bar'). Which

Re: Regression in Set-Cookie which affects Django users

django-cookie-samesite has a browser version guesser, because different browsers interpret samesite differently. The best solution I've heard of is setting two cookies with two different names, one the old way and one the google way. Then check for both where checking needs done, one of them

Re: [Feature Request] Having an middleware to be able to force authentication on views by default

The oldest code at https://djangosnippets.org that fixes this is from 2008 so I guess something like this have been considered trivial to build yourself ever since then, and hence why it's never been added. Here are some alternatives: https://djangosnippets.org/search/?q=login+required I've been

Re: Django security releases issued: 3.0.1, 2.2.9, and 1.11.27

This depends on the collation that is used . On a system sorting everything as if it was Turkish, "ı" and "i" would be considered two different letters, but I guess everywhere else they would be merged into "i". On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 at

Re: Widening participation (Thoughts from DjangoCon)

On 12/11/18 8:38 PM, Josh Smeaton wrote: Jamesie: please see "Why not Gitlab?" [0]. While it might be better from a technical standpoint, it would not be better than GH Issues from an onboarding perspective. [0]https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0581/#why-not-gitlab Note that they didn't

Re: Widening participation (Thoughts from DjangoCon)

On 12/12/18 12:34 AM, Jamesie Pic wrote: Thanks Josh, love your link, seems like it dates from 2017 during the period when GitLab UI was redesigned. But GitLab is still emerging as a standard tool no matter what. I'm currently attempting to move some issues from github to gitlab. The rant

Re: Widening participation (Thoughts from DjangoCon)

Whenever I've had to move from one issue-system to another, the main pain point has always been issue/comment ownership[*]. This is because many systems want a login-capable, verified user for every single person that have ever made an issue or comment. If there is no 1-to-1 mapping, the

Re: Proposal to extend support for object permission

How object permissions work in the admin is also a bit of an undocumented surprise. You need 'change_*' on the model, not just on a specific object in order to to be able to do just about anything at all. 'delete_selected` cannot check for object permissions etc. I just started using

Re: Feature request: django.py makemessages --add-location=full|file|never

Since no flag equals "full" and "--no-location" equals "never" maybe a new flag "--file-location" for "file" instead of "--add-location" for all three? On 27 March 2017 at 23:55, Adam Johnson wrote: > I don't see any reason against adding it. If there isn't a ticket already, > you

Re: Sonar for the Django rpoject

Is there a way to ignore django.utils.dateformat? That code is very straight forward, and it is not supposed to be called manually by humans. I can't see how a "fix" would improve things. Munging the second string in the getattr? Adding "upper" and "lower" or something similar to each method-name?

I've found a better way of getting the correct sequence name on postgres

We needed to switch a table from using one sequence to another as the first stage in merging two tables, and discovered that django can't pick up the new sequence-name. Actually, it's the postgres-function that the backend uses that is at fault. Fortunately I found a way to introspect for the

Re: Making Django more PaaS-friendly

On 12 April 2016 at 05:35, Martin Owens wrote: > There is a difference between settings intended by developers to be used by > other developers /../ And settings used by systems administrators to define > the environment they are deployed to as well as any deployment specific

Re: Query on BooleanField with values other than True and False, bug or intentional?

I don't think enforcing it would be pythonic. Once upon a time, Python lacked True and False, all you had were truthy and falsey and maybe per-project/team constants: http://python-history.blogspot.no/2013/11/story-of-none-true-false.html I remember the arguments when bool() was added. Those

Re: improving debug logging in development

What about the yellow 500 error-page when in debug-mode? I'd like to have a copy of the complete thing *somewhere* now that what's sent by email is sanitized. Cloning a running system, turning DEBUG on and attempting to trigger the same error isn't always easy. Is the 500-data loggable at all? On

Re: WSGI Regression 1.4 -> 1.5?

On 1 November 2013 14:22, Florian Apolloner wrote: First of all, using prefork and daemon mode is probably not the best choice > you can make. I'd assume you are storing state in the process in your auth > backend somehwere… > Prefork thanks to php, which is used to

WSGI Regression 1.4 -> 1.5?

I have an auth-backend inheriting from model backend that works on 1.3.x and 1.4.x but does not work on 1.5.x. The only difference between the systems is the version of Django. After much comparing and cursing and tearing of hair, it turns out what has changed is how Django behaves under mod_wsgi

Re: Design discussion: admin alert messages

Did you test the colors with a color-blind filter? Always a question to ask when red and green is given significance in any way. The new error red is better though, bigger contrast to the white. On 7 October 2013 22:44, Ryan Allen wrote: >

Re: Confusion around generic views queryset cloning.

On 22 July 2013 10:37, Loic Bistuer wrote: > I updated the PR to do away with the public `clone()` method. > > As long as we have a long-term goal for a `QuerySet.clone()` method, I'm > happy. > > If we plan on changing the cloning behavior, now is effectively a bad

Re: RFC: "universal" view decorators

On 3 June 2013 18:09, wrote: > # `DecoratorMixin` > > `DecoratorMixin` is a class factory that converts any view decorator into > a class-based view mixin. > > Using it is easy and intuitive: > > LoginRequiredMixin = DecoratorMixin(login_required) > Now this, this feels

Re: Django's CVB - Roadmap?

On 1 June 2012 16:54, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote: > I think this might be a situation where we need some more feedback > from the community and some more time to decide what the right move > here is. > > So... what do *you* think? I've used CBV's in one app so far, and have

Re: auth.user refactor: the profile aproach

On 3 April 2012 04:56, Alex Ogier wrote: > I get that Django's core is very accustomed to the relational database mode > of thinking: "If a User might own a Twitter handle, then let's create a > table of twitter handles in the twitter-auth app, and foreign key back to > the

Making the EmailField RFC-compliant: proposals here!

As for instance per bug #17870, email-addresses can be as long as 254 bytes. Today, the length of the EmailField is less than that. If django is to be RFC-compliant in this respect, we will need to come up with a way to migrate existing email-fields to the new length. 1. Migration in general No

Re: auth.User refactor: reboot

On 21 March 2012 09:40, Ian Lewis wrote: > To my mind it's the least important of the tenets of the design of > newauth, but I personally would like to use it at least for admin > users and normal site users. The issue for me is that the > functionality required of users of

Re: Request for review / Multiple time zone support for datetime representation

On 18 November 2011 16:57, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote: > My point is that it would be very useful to know you are actually > using aware datetimes internally. Especially when migrating an old > project to use this feature, it is easy to miss some places that do > not use

Re: Localization on User model

On 10 November 2011 18:53, hcarvalhoalves wrote: > I believe the solution is to actually figure a migration path to move > everything that is non-essential to outside the User model. To > identify a User, it should be enough to have username, password and > permissions,

Re: Cleaning up manage.py and import paths

On 11 October 2011 02:06, Luke Plant wrote: > On 10/10/11 23:05, Carl Meyer wrote: > >> Unless there are significant objections, I'd like to commit this in the >> next few days and get it into 1.4. I'll also modify the patch on #16360 >> to take advantage of the new layout;

Django and the new EU anti-cookie law

"From 26th May 2011 websites in the UK need to ask for permission before they can set cookies not required for ‘essential’ means" http://blog.silktide.com/2011/05/cookie-law-makes-most-uk-websites-illegal-what-you-need-to-know/ What cookies in Django are "essential"? When not logged in I see

Re: Test optimizations (2-5x as fast)

On 18 May 2011 01:46, Erik Rose wrote: >> Is there a sensible to way "copy" databases in SQL? > > SQL 2003 introduced CREATE TABLE x LIKE y for cloning the schema of a table. > It's supported in MySQL at least. You could then do a bunch of INSERT INTO > ... SELECTs if you

Re: countries model or list like settings.LANGUAGES

On 1 May 2011 15:33, Mateusz Harasymczuk wrote: > I have to agree with this guy: > http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5446 There are two competing third-party solutions to a country-field out there, both helpfully named django-countries: 1)

Re: Upgrading from 1.2 to 1.3: Is there a guide?

On 23 March 2011 14:26, Russell Keith-Magee <russ...@keith-magee.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Hanne Moa <hanne@gmail.com> wrote: >> Remembering the pain of going from 1.1 to 1.2 (csrf-token), is there >> or will there be a guide/one-stop-shop fo

Upgrading from 1.2 to 1.3: Is there a guide?

Remembering the pain of going from 1.1 to 1.2 (csrf-token), is there or will there be a guide/one-stop-shop for upgrading from 1.2 to 1.3? That is: are there other big changes than generic view functions to generic view classes and could there be an official/canonical page listing these?

Postgres sequence names (I've reopened #8901)

The fix in #8901 partially fixes #1946, making it easier to use django with some egacy postgres databases. It does not however aid in the use of legacy databases that uses postgres' own inheritance as pg_get_serial_sequence() doesn't work on these. Until postgres gets its act together :) we can

Re: Allow slug to be prepopulated on edit

On 25 October 2010 15:19, rebus_ wrote: > IMHO, proper implementation in cases where slug is used in URI should at > least: > >  * remember the old slug for the object >  * return HTTP 301 [1] when the URI with the old slug is requested and >   have Location field set to a

Re: AutoFields, legacy databases and non-standard sequence names.

On 7 October 2010 19:14, akaariai wrote: > Django doesn't expect the sequence name to be tablename_columname_seq, > at least not in trunk. The last_insert_id method in backends/ > postgresql/operations.py uses select > currval(pg_get_serial_sequence(tablename, columname)). >

Re: AutoFields, legacy databases and non-standard sequence names.

On 6 October 2010 04:02, Tom Eastman wrote: > I'm using Django to create an interface for a legacy PostgresQL database. >  The primary keys for my tables use sequences that aren't named the way > django expects them to be (i.e. '__seq'), this means I can't > call them

Re: #6735 -- Class based generic views: call for comment

On 1 October 2010 07:26, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I already have one specific piece of API feedback: the current > implementation requires that all view logic is contained in GET(), > POST() etc style views. This is fine, except for the fact that there > are occasions

Re: #12012 Logging: request for comments

On 27 September 2010 17:16, Luke Plant <l.plant...@cantab.net> wrote: > Anyway, this seems good to me, and I can't think of a better place.  For > the probably rare case of putting logging calls in your settings.py > (like Hanne Moa does), there is nothing to stop you setting up log

Re: #12012 Logging: request for comments

On 25 September 2010 08:16, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > At this point, I'm calling for feedback, particularly on the following: > >  * logging config as the last stage of settings loading. Is this the > right place? Can anyone think of a better place? Well naturally you

Re: proposal for lazy foreignkeys

On 25 September 2010 19:47, Carl Meyer wrote: > 1. Reusable apps overuse GenericForeignKey. GFKs are inefficient and > smell bad. I seem to gradually be going away from GenericForeignKey and using "Glue"-models instead. App1, model1, is connected to App2, model2 via App3,

Re: Possible bug discovered

On 19 September 2010 09:08, Yo-Yo Ma wrote: >  File "C:\Python26\Lib\site-packages\django-trunk\django\template > \__init__.py", line 352, in add_library >    self.tags.update(lib.tags) > > AttributeError: 'NoneType' object has no attribute 'tags' Check for import

Re: Datetimes with timezones for mysql

On 17 August 2010 05:24, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 12:13 AM, Vitaly Babiy wrote: >> I been doing a lot with timezone aware dates and I noticed that the mysql >> store will not allow you to store a datetime aware datetime. >

Re: Make "required=True" on forms.fields.NullBooleanField do something useful?

On 17 June 2010 13:01, Matt Hoskins wrote: > For the reasons I gave in my explanation above - which bit isn't > clear? Why not reuse the NullBoolean widget with a Boolean field? HM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django

Re: EmailMessage mangles body text

On 28 April 2010 16:13, Vinay Sajip <vinay_sa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Apr 28, 1:11 pm, Hanne Moa <hanne@gmail.com> wrote: >> the-real-solution-is-to-ditch-SMTP-ly yours, >> HM, postmaster > > And your suggestion for a replacement would be ... what? I would

Re: EmailMessage mangles body text

On 28 April 2010 03:38, Leo wrote: > This is a fun one. A bit like finding fossils, methinks. > The message that appears on the other end has this in the body: > > >From puppies > > A From at the beginning of any lines in the body gets a > prepended to > it. The

Re: Templates by app

On 20 March 2010 12:48, wrote: > You can use both schemes. Defaults in app/templates, overrides of defaults in project/templates. HM -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email

Re: contrib.Auth

On 10 February 2010 23:33, Sayane wrote: > I think that an easy way to define your own user model is better idea. Auth > app should be more generic. It should define a protocol for user, group and > permission objects /../ Why should permissions and groups be in the same app as

Re: contrib.Auth

On 9 February 2010 09:09, Harro wrote: > - Make email unique and username non-required on the model. That would > make implementing something that authenticated by email a lot > easier :) Pff, move emails out entirely. Email-addresses may change. Usernames shouldn't change.

Re: Porting Django to Python 3

2010/1/13 Tobias McNulty : > I am by no means an expert on the matter, but I remember seeing a comment > awhile back suggesting that it generally makes more sense to fix the 2to3 > script than to maintain two branches of the same library. Might that be the > case here as

Re: Possible contrib.humanize addition

2010/1/6 sago : >> If you present some research to >> demonstrate how this tag could/would work for non-English languages, >> it would be a lot more compelling. > > That's not going to work, in any meaningful sense. That peculiarity of > the article is highly

Re: Add querystring helper methods to Page class

2009/12/22 Ben Spaulding : > I have created a patch that would allow for something much simpler, like so: > > Next page This is what I do in my own homemade paginators. It works well. > Though there has been much talk of creating template tags which would > produce

Re: auth.User: a new approach

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 16:18, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:52 PM, Hanne Moa <hanne@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> It doesn't look like Contrib-06, covering ticket #3011, Allow for >> extendable user module, wi

auth.User: a new approach

It doesn't look like Contrib-06, covering ticket #3011, Allow for extendable user module, will be in for 1.2. So: let's think afresh, start from scratch, think about what we really, really want. This is my pony for *2.0*: The underlying problem of today's auth.User is IMO that it conflates two

Re: Are threading.local objects evil? (was Re: shortcut proposal)

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 23:30, Michael P. Jung wrote: > Cal Henderson in the Keynote "Why I Hate Django" pointed out in a very > funny way that most projects never get THAT big that you need multi db > support, partitioning, extensive database clusters, etc. Just skip to >

Re: Session/cookie based messages (#4604)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 14:22, Tobias McNulty <tob...@caktusgroup.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 3:53 AM, Hanne Moa <hanne@gmail.com> wrote: >> In fact, it would be very useful to both log and add a message at the >> same time, iff there is an error. So

Re: Session/cookie based messages (#4604)

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 09:27, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I'm just > noting that adding Django support for Python logging is also on the > cards for v1.2, and it seems weird that we would introduce two APIs > with similar external APIs, but not try to maintain parity.

Re: Does #3591 need solving? (was Re: Django 1.2 roadmap and schedule)

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 01:46, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Hanne Moa <hanne@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 13:51, Russell Keith-Magee >> <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: &g

Re: Proposal for 1.2: built-in logging with django.core.log

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 04:42, Simon Willison wrote: > I'm keen to receive as much feedback on the implementation as possible. It is perfectly possible to set up logging in such a way that all the logs for several programs wind up in the same file, or there are

Re: Session/cookie based messages (#4604)

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 19:53, Tobias McNulty wrote: > I should have also added: > > * Coming to consensus on a de facto standard API suitable for > inclusion in Django The suggested API: how hard will it be to use different message-types in addition to the syslog-like

Re: Django 1.2 roadmap and schedule

On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 13:51, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Looking at #3591 in particular - another big part of the problem is > that the ticket tries to solve a theoretical problem that, in > practice, doesn't really exist - that of namespace collisions in >

Re: Session/cookie based messages (#4604)

On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 01:00, Tobias wrote: > There are a number of usable solutions out there but django-notify is > the most complete, polished one that I know of. I've just tested django_notify, so far it seems plenty good enough to replace all my pass-on-message

Re: Suggestion: Better way to extend user table

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 04:54, Andrew Fong wrote: > The real problem is all of the code and third-party contrib that > expects the User model to live at django.contrib.auth.models. Ideally, > all of these apps should be rewritten to expect not the actual User > model but any

Re: append_slash alternative: remove_slash

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 22:08, M. N. Islam Shihan wrote: > I think another toggle flag ENABLE_REMOVE_SLASH_MODE (or any other > appropriate name) can be added to the settings.py and setting that > tlag to true will alter the existing APPEND_SLASH flag to be treated > as

Re: 1.1: Ticket #3569 (Enhanced Atom Support)

On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 01:40, Eric Holscher wrote: > I have talked to James Tauber about ticket #3569 which is about adding > better support for Atom to the syndication feeds framework. > > I know a lot of people (myself included) use his atom.py[1] file > instead of

Re: Distributed workflow and the woes of slow testsuite

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 18:04, mrts wrote: > As of now, I'll stop pursuing this further, but when I come back to > this, > would the approach outlined in http://dpaste.com/108140/ be > acceptable? > > I.e. if > 1) not specified explicitly (by the --multiprocessing option to

Re: SessionWizard

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 03:34, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > When the done() method is called, the session is also cleared unless > done(). Maybe this should only happen if say a ValidationError isn't > raised? Maybe a setting that makes this not happen? In all of my > situations it

Re: Dropping Python 2.3 compatibility for Django 1.1

On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 18:08, Jacob Kaplan-Moss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to officially drop Python 2.3 support in Django 1.1. Discuss. Yes please. Maybe put up a poll, prominently, on the djangoproject.com homepage? Maybe make a timeline? Drop 2.3-support by date x, drop

Re: Proposal: Composite Foreign Keys

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 19:12, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You guys are really bad about keeping on topic. :) Good way to prevent a discussion from entering Godwin-territory :) I should perhaps have mentioned something along the lines of "this is an example of where there is

Re: Proposal: Composite Foreign Keys

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 00:55, Frank Liu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Plus, if you had a chance to look at the type of databases that I have > to deal with by day, you will see why this is so important to me. Yo. Not that big, but there's a DBA involved for some of 'em. Let's just say I can't

Re: Ticket 9483

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 15:26, H. de Vries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I searched around and it seems that a lot of people aren't too > happy with Python's default title() functionality. ( > http://muffinresearch.co.uk/archives/2008/05/27/titlecasepy-titlecase-in-python/ > ) > > From a