version numbers aren't decimal numers. 2.0 doesn't have to wait for 1.9.
Maybe even drop python 2 for django 2.0?
On Saturday, 30 June 2012 21:25:07 UTC+2, Jacob Kaplan-Moss wrote:
> Wow. There's really a lot to think about here, and I'm only just
> starting. Thanks fo
Sounds like a bad plan, what if by fixing the failed test you break
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
hmm that's indeed weird. The regex excludes those as well
The Q and Z should be added or a comment should be added to the code
explaining the reason for leaving them out.
On Jan 14, 11:23 am, Gabriel Hurley wrote:
> 1. Is there a reason Django's phone2numeric
I was having a look at the new 1.2 row level permission support that
got added and ran into the problem that the AnonymousUser does not
call the authentication backend functions.
The default backend doesn't need this, but with a custom backend I
might want to implement Guest permissions.
Hmm where did the foreign key go on the 1.2 example?
And I must say that the name for the modelc column is a bit weird.
On Jan 14, 8:13 am, simonb wrote:
> I think this tickethttp://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12386
> identifies a change in the m2m code which breaks
; On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 8:13 AM, Harro <hvdkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I was having a look at the new 1.2 row level permission support that
> > got added and ran into the problem that the AnonymousUser does not
> > call the authentication backend functions.
> > T
Why wouldn't a AnonymousUser have permissions?
Imagine a site where can create photo albums.
User A creates two photo albums, one to share with a specific set of
users and one that's public.
So Album A has no guest permissions, Album B has viewing permissions.
Now let's say you can also comment
And adding my own class won't work because of the same reason.
On Jan 17, 9:32 pm, Yuri Baburov <burc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Harro,
> Just create a special "AnonymousUser" as User with id=0, and set it up
> with backend/mi
a permissions check?
> > ~Noah Silas
> > 2010/1/18 Łukasz Rekucki <lreku...@gmail.com>
> >> 2010/1/18 Alex Gaynor <alex.gay...@gmail.com>:
> >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Jannis Leidel <jan...@leidel.info>
> >> >
@Janis: I see your point,in my proposal the default model
authentication backend always returns False for the AnonymousUser.
That would indeed mean guest users have no access at all.
But I guess you could write a wrapper that used a function specified
in the settings (with a default pointing to a
oh also: It's kinda like the messages framework rewrite now supporting
messages for anonymous users.
And I guess making it truely awesome would require permissions for
anonymoususers in the default backend too. :(
If I have timeI'll see what I can come up with.
On Jan 19, 4:34 pm, Jannis Leidel
On Jan 20, 8:49 am, Harro <hvdkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> class User(models.Model):
> permissions = models.ManyToMany('Permission',
> class UserPermission(models.Model):
> user = models.ForeignKey('User', blank=True, null
I think so far we agree that we need to add something for anonymous
users, because the added enhancement currently doesn't add enough to
integrate row level permissions as they should be.
The problems are:
- Anonymous users should check the authentication backend for
permissions, so it is
a login_required or has_perm
Because a real pluggable app would want to support both :)
On Jan 26, 4:01 pm, Florian Apolloner <f.apollo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 26, 3:19 pm, Harro <hvdkl...@gmail.com> wrote:> - If the default
> backend always returns fals
Added a patch to the ticket.
some documentation should also be added.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Sick of explaining to dutch customers that I can't translate those
texts in the admin.
It's a simple patch which doesn't break backwards compatibility at
On Jan 27, 3:54 pm, Alex Robbins
> This ticket adds label and verbose_name to apps. I know
I would also like to point out: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/12600
It does break existing code however, because it will look for the
preview template somewhere else.
On Jan 28, 2:25 am, Ben Firshman wrote:
> On 27 Jan 2010, at 22:50, Ben Firshman wrote:
> > On
Hope you feel better today :)
On Feb 5, 3:35 am, James Bennett wrote:
> Due to a combination of exhaustion and illness on the part of the
> release manager (me), I'm going to slide the 1.2 beta release one day;
> that means beta tomorrow (Friday, February 5, probably
- Make email unique and username non-required on the model. That would
make implementing something that authenticated by email a lot
On Feb 9, 1:34 am, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Justin Lilly wrote:
that does this.
On Feb 9, 5:54 pm, Vitaly Babiy <vbabi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vitaly Babiy
> On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 3:16 AM, James Bennett <ubernost...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 2:09 AM, Harro <hvdkl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > - M
I think it's a good idea, but the implementation needs some work.
As a default it should keep working as it does now, to keep backwards
So I think David's idea is a good one, but I think the method name
should be more descriptive, like get_or_none and latest_or_none
On Mar 8,
See ticket: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/13095
Just posting the used code here:
A choice in a poll
poll = models.ForeignKey(Poll, related_name='choices',
Just my brainfart when looking at this: Can't you simply add a pre
save signal to call the full clean method?
Dunno if that will work or not, just the first thing I would try.
On Mar 16, 5:12 pm, James Bennett wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 10:36 AM, orokusaki
I think the problem isn't the login_required, but it simply does what
it says it does: Check if the user is logged in.
For me a user with is_active set to false shouldn't be allowed to
login, they either just created an account and still need to verify it
or they indicated that they wanted their
The thing is, quoted get variables will get unquoted, quoted url
parameters won't be unquoted automatically. That's up to the developer
Ran into the same issue today, and for me it made sense to do the
quoting before passing it to the reverse function, but for me it was
an URL which
Ah crap.. now you've done it.. now I want to be at the djangocon.eu
Why do all the fun things always happen at the same time..
I guess I could stay the thursday. and then go home on friday.
Ah well.. I'll have till monday to think about it.
On May 14, 4:27 pm, Jeremy Dunck
We had a site where we needed a wizard with the ability to go back and
forward and store files.
Only allowing files in the last step really isn't an option imho, that
just avoiding the problem ;-)
What we did was simply store the files in a temporary folder and have
a management command to clean
+1 on the storage backend. Can the current filestorage backend be
reused for this?
On May 31, 10:44 am, Gert Van Gool wrote:
> MEDIA_ROOT isn't a good solution. It should use a StorageBackend.
> For instance, when you use a load-balancer there is no guarantee that
I think grouping issues and features requests is always a good
Now about the "Model fields with not-default values".
With 1.2 something like that landed to override the widget for fields
on ModelForms, but I agree that sometimes you need to change a label
or help text for a specific form
+1 on option 3.
Oldest postgresql we have is 8.2.
I pity the fool who didn't upgrade !
On Jun 9, 2:38 pm, Antoni Aloy wrote:
> +1 on Drop 7.4 PostgreSQL support. Postgressql 8.x series has lots of
> performance and utility features and it would be a pity to remain in
Also ON DELETE RESTRICT
On Jun 10, 8:53 am, Thomas Guettler wrote:
> The documentation says django emulates "ON DELETE CASCADE":
> But it is missing how to emulate ON DELETE SET NULL.
> In this
I agree, and while we're at it also change the settings.py template to
just point to urls instead of project_name.urls
On Jun 10, 7:21 pm, Andrew Godwin wrote:
> Hi all,
> I noticed today that the tutorial still does imports like "from
> mysite.polls.models import Poll",
Authentication = verification
Login = saving the authenticated user so we remember them.
Putting login on the user model is a bad idea.
That will only make the whole auth app less flexible than it already
What if I have another model which isn't a user but is able to login.
I wrote an extends tag once that changed the extending template based
on a get variable..
The idea was that we could then simply get a part of the website in a
lightbox popup without all the "outer content".
I removed it afterwards and we did it properly.. it felt dirty.
On Oct 15, 3:29 pm, Luke
I would suggest also adding a way to exclude all context except items
specified with the with syntax.
(nocontext keyword or something like that).
Because sometimes I have certainly named items in my context which can
also be used in the included template but I don't want there. Sure you
up to the app/tool that does this to fix relative paths and other
issues that arrise when compressing/combining files.
It has nothing to do with the serving of the files.
On Oct 29, 12:04 pm, "burc...@gmail.com"
On Nov 9, 5:59 pm, Carl Meyer wrote:
> This is committed as r14507:http://code.djangoproject.com/changeset/14507
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email
I have a patch for #14249 , but I ran into a problem with inactive
Right now the active check is done before the superuser check. If we
move the inactive check to the authentication backend, the superuser
check get's executed before the is_active check, resulting in
I agree with Jacob on the bake/baked thing.. but maybe it's just
CakePHP coming to haunt me :S
On Nov 29, 1:09 pm, Ivan Sagalaev wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 02:58 PM, Russell Keith-Magee wrote:
> > My counterargument would be this -- if you use TemplateResponse,
If it does not exist; create a ticket.
+1 on both points
On Dec 7, 4:13 pm, Marco Paolini wrote:
> I think call_command should return something significant
> to let the caller know if the command was successful or not.
> Another issue ralated to this is: having an
Shameless bump to get some attention for 1.3 :)
Would be really nice to have this for 1.3 as it puts us one step
closer to making the User model replacable !
I think it might be a good idea to move all the checks to the
authentication backend so it works consistently for User.has_perm,
Is this mod_python specific or does it also happen with mod_wsgi or
On Dec 13, 3:47 pm, Carl Meyer wrote:
> On Dec 12, 4:40 pm, Pakal wrote:
> > Why, then, isn't it specified that all models.py files should be
> > loaded by
Made some comments about the bug and the patch.
The patch gives the right result, but the JOIN there is a bit weird.
On Dec 15, 7:54 pm, Philippe Raoult
> I have produced a patch for this  long-standing SQL bug.
> The SQL produced with the patch is
- Will the as_* methods on forms be deprecated? They seem to be a nice
shorter version then the new way to do it.
- I assume the formconfig calls are for the current context, but can I set
them in the base.html and then automatically have them used in all templates
1.Disk hits can be avoided using the django.template.loaders.cached.Loader.
We have a form rendering system that uses a lot of templates and it's being
used in some pretty big websites, so far I haven't notices performance
issues because of form rendering and we haven't use the cached loader as
How would the raw_id_fields then work? Would that then turn them into
selects again or would that be another setting?
If you want it in your whole project you could just extend the ModelAdmin
and make the raw_id_fields a property that returns all the fields then use
that as a base class for
The problem is that you can't just use it everywhere, like mentioned
earlier it only works if the other side of the relation is also available
in the admin (which might not be the case, or only for some of the fields.)
I would say add it to the good old djangosnippets
I'm against, there are lots of cases where a modelform is used to edit an
exitsting object and thus the required fields are already set and you don't
want them to be editable.
If it's a trivial patch then you should think about extending modelform in
your own project enforce it there and then
Mail list logo