Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

Hi All, I have a pull request for simple add()/create() etc with m2m through tables if any wants to try it out: https://github.com/django/django/pull/8981 If people are happy with the API, I'll add the docs too. Collin On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Luis Masuelli

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

I'm quite happy to see the topic is at least being considered! <3. Although I suggested a solution, I like the solution posted by Collin in the PR (I'd prefer solutions not involving signature changes in methods, but anyway those signature changes Colin posted are not so... obtrusive). I'd

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

Here's a little bit more historical discussion on the topic: *https://groups.google.com/d/topic/django-developers/uWe31AjzZX0/discussion * On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 at 05:57 Russell Keith-Magee wrote:

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 2:37 PM, Adam Johnson wrote: > It does seem like a somewhat arbitrary historical restriction. Collin's > PoC change is surprisingly small and simple. > > Seems like it would be fine if Django allowed add() and let any errors >> about missing data bubble-up.

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

It does seem like a somewhat arbitrary historical restriction. Collin's PoC change is surprisingly small and simple. Seems like it would be fine if Django allowed add() and let any errors > about missing data bubble-up. > Agree, this is also a precedent from get_or_create. > I personally think

Re: I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

Hi, Check out https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/9475 Seems like it would be fine if Django allowed add() and let any errors about missing data bubble-up. I personally think passing in a defaults dict (just like get_or_create does) would also be fine, but a callback seems like overkill.

I would like to discuss my proposal for a working way to call .add() on an m2m with through= model

I was reading this link in the official history and this other link in this group , but still do not understand why the issue against a way to call .add() to add a