Jinja2 form rendering for the admin

of-the-box experience for users, including being able to set the FORM_RENDERER to Jinja2, and have the admin Just Work. So, thoughts? Is this something worth filing a ticket for? -Joey Wilhelm [1]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/ref/forms/renderers/#jinja2 [2]: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/topic

Re: Additional PostgreSQL-specific functions

Ping! Is there any chance of getting some additional guidance on these? I'd love to get these contributed, if they are welcome! -Joey Wilhelm On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Joey Wilhelm <tarkatro...@gmail.com> wrote: > I did come upon that ticket, but I wasn't sure this necessarily

Re: Additional PostgreSQL-specific functions

, Matthew Pava <matthew.p...@iss.com> wrote: > I wonder if we should put that in this ticket: > > https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/28643 > > > > > > *From:* django-developers@googlegroups.com [mailto:django-developers@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Joey W

Additional PostgreSQL-specific functions

Greetings, Yesterday I opened a ticket[1] for a "RegexpReplace" method for PostgreSQL. After some talk and encouragement over in IRC, I have additionally created a "SubstrFrom" function for PostgreSQL, which allows you to use a regex match in order to extract your substring. So at this point, I

Re: Methodology for increasing the number of PBKDF2 iterations

ions, verification takes, on average, 0.3054s I'm not sure what conclusions this can help with, but at least they are some solid-ish numbers to work with. -Joey Wilhelm On Wed, Jan 4, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com> wrote: > Python 2.7.12 will look the same as 3.5.x

Re: Methodology for increasing the number of PBKDF2 iterations

This appears to agree with Tobias' results; this is also on a Mac. I can toss in an older Python 2.7 as well if necessary or desired to see the slower implementation. But I think this shows that there's a near enough negligible speed difference in recent Python versions. Aside from perhaps a very slight sp

Re: JsonpResponse subclass of HttpResponse helps easily create JSONP-encoded responses.

Agreed on discouraging (or at least not actively encouraging) the use of JSONP. Everything I've read on it has started with big "Do not try this at home!" warnings. I also very strongly agree on built-in support for CORS, especially elements of DRF getting more tightly integrated into the core. I

Re: Making Django more PaaS-friendly

Just to throw another voice in here, I'm currently using django-environ[1], as mentioned by Sean Brant. In addition, I'm using a settings setup based on cookiecutter-django[2]. This means having my settings split into `config.settings.common`, `config.settings.local`, `config.settings.production`,

Re: Should contrib.auth include support for 2fa out of the box?

Fwiw, 2fa is on my short list of things to implement into my current project. It's a fairly important feature to me, as this is a financial project. And that particular implementation is precisely what I was looking to use. I would happily contribute money and/or time toward this implementation,

Re: [GSOC] Multi-DB Status Update

Hi Alex, On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 16:04, Alex Gaynor wrote: > Hello All, > > I've spent the past week at EuroDjangocon, and as such I've had the > opportunity to discuss multi-db stuff with a bunch of very smart people. > Simon and I resolved the issue of DSNs vs. dicts (as

Re: Multi-DB

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 16:03, Simon Willison wrote: > 3. (really nutty one this) - a very high scale situation where an > application is partitioned across hundreds of databases, which each > one having the same set of tables. This is how WordPress-MU works (as > used by

Re: How do you handle cascading deletes in your production apps?

Zach, You can always run custom delete operations if you want to work around the built in cascading. Take a look at the following example to see how you can do that: http://dpaste.com/92116/ Also, note that there is a ticket to add support for ON UPDATE and ON DELETE clauses to Django[1].

Re: Proposal: Composite Foreign Keys

Hanne, I ran into that exact problem myself and filed the following ticket related to the issue: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9519 I also found that you could run your own delete operation through the ORM, however, to work around this. It's more work and certainly not in line with DRY or

Re: Dynamic SITE_ID (again)

for now. I haven't had too much chance to do extensive testing yet though. Also, as has been pointed out in the past, this is simply -not- the right way to do it. On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:16, Joe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Joey Wilhelm wrote: > > I also found a snippet which im

Dynamic SITE_ID (again)

I would like to bring up the topic discussed both in this ticket: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/4438 and here in this group as well: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/4125cb192c72ed59/7a9f379f5e5b9090 I also found a snippet which implements something

Re: 1.0.1 release blockers?

I would like to suggest the following: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9245 http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6710 They both have fully functional patches... although granted the second has no tests. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because

Re: Composite Primary Keys

That would be great. The project I am working on now won't be doing anything too terribly complex just yet; I mainly need the admin support to make my life a little easier. As to the API, I saw several proposals earlier along on this thread, but obviously nothing solid. Did anything ever come

Re: Composite Primary Keys

David, What is the current status of this patch? I'm starting up a new project which pretty much desperately needs this support as well. I could work around it, but the thought of adding AutoFields to all of these models which really -do not- need them, makes me a bit ill. I would be more than

Re: Ticket #9405 - Thoughts?

ss <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:42 AM, Joey Wilhelm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > The patch itself is [...] potentially very helpful. > > How so? Be specific: we don't add things to Django because of their > "potential&quo

Ticket #9405 - Thoughts?

I wanted to bring this up here on the mailing list, as I doubt much discussion will take place on a ticket which was closed as "wontfix". I added a comment to the ticket after it was closed as to my reasoning behind the ticket and associated patch, and I wanted to see what other people have to say

Re: Proposal: user-friendly API for multi-database support

any direct references to the global connection object, and I'm not entirely sure how to work around this at the moment, aside from perhaps passing the connection to the Field object. Any input, suggestions, criticism, etc are welcome. --Joey Wilhelm --~--~-~--~~~---~--