Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

hello guys!
I added a new changeset to reflect what we discussed here
Please check it out.
https://github.com/django/django/compare/master...sergeyglazyrindev:master

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 21:02:41 UTC+1 користувач Sergey Glazyrin написав:
>
> or we can add a simple builder helper
> def build_backend_django_object(class_, request):
> obj = class_()
> if hasattr(obj, 'request'):
>warnings.warn('Please change your auth backend because now we pass to 
> the instance of backend HttpRequest object')
> else:
>obj.request = request
> return obj
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 20:13:06 UTC+1 користувач Sergey Glazyrin написав:
>>
>> ok, let me know if there would be any consensus and I'll change my 
>> solution according to maintainers consensus.
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 20:10:46 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> Django has managed this before by examining the function signature. 
>>> Adding a property directly onto the instance could cause some issues, for 
>>> example if there is already a user property. I guess this could be detected 
>>> and a deprecation warning issued though.
>>>
>>> Anyway, this is all academic unless there is consensus. 
>>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2018 19:00, "Sergey Glazyrin"  wrote:
>>>
>>> We use function load_backend in django about 5 times in production code, 
>>> so, it shouldn't be a big change
>>> About signals idea: yes, I can implement it using signals abstraction 
>>> though I prefer to be tied to the "Builder" idea, there would no big 
>>> difference between signals and Builder implementation in this case because 
>>> load_backend always returns a new instance of the class, so, I expect no 
>>> threading problems, etc, it's just a way to distribute process of building 
>>> objects
>>> About adding request to get_user, I don't like it because then all 
>>> dependent of django projects will need to change backends, it would be 
>>> worst for community 
>>>
>>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:52:06 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:

 I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran 
 into a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user. 

 Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite 
 simple, whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of 
 Django seems like it would be harder to get consensus. 

 You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that 
 is passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which 
 is 
 akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.

 On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  wrote:

> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if 
> the solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of 
> the 
> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method 
> [1], 
> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>
> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin 
> wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token 
>> to solve this problem.
>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is 
>> to to use django auth backend logic.
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if 
>>> included 
>>> (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 
>>>
>>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something 
>>> couldn’t 
>>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (
>>> sergey.gl...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello guys! 
>>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
>>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>>
>>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>>
>>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
>>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>>
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

>>>  
>>>
>>> ..
 code
 .
  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
  backend,request = request
 .
 code
 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

or we can add a simple builder helper
def build_backend_django_object(class_, request):
obj = class_()
if hasattr(obj, 'request'):
   warnings.warn('Please change your auth backend because now we pass to 
the instance of backend HttpRequest object')
else:
   obj.request = request
return obj

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 20:13:06 UTC+1 користувач Sergey Glazyrin написав:
>
> ok, let me know if there would be any consensus and I'll change my 
> solution according to maintainers consensus.
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 20:10:46 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>
>> Django has managed this before by examining the function signature. 
>> Adding a property directly onto the instance could cause some issues, for 
>> example if there is already a user property. I guess this could be detected 
>> and a deprecation warning issued though.
>>
>> Anyway, this is all academic unless there is consensus. 
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2018 19:00, "Sergey Glazyrin"  wrote:
>>
>> We use function load_backend in django about 5 times in production code, 
>> so, it shouldn't be a big change
>> About signals idea: yes, I can implement it using signals abstraction 
>> though I prefer to be tied to the "Builder" idea, there would no big 
>> difference between signals and Builder implementation in this case because 
>> load_backend always returns a new instance of the class, so, I expect no 
>> threading problems, etc, it's just a way to distribute process of building 
>> objects
>> About adding request to get_user, I don't like it because then all 
>> dependent of django projects will need to change backends, it would be 
>> worst for community 
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:52:06 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran 
>>> into a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user. 
>>>
>>> Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite 
>>> simple, whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of 
>>> Django seems like it would be harder to get consensus. 
>>>
>>> You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that 
>>> is passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which is 
>>> akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.
>>>
>>> On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  wrote:
>>>
 Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
 solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
 doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
 authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
 monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method 
 [1], 
 I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.

 [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187

 On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin 
 wrote:
>
> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token 
> to solve this problem.
> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is 
> to to use django auth backend logic.
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>
>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
>> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included 
>> (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 
>>
>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something 
>> couldn’t 
>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>
>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (
>> sergey.gl...@gmail.com) wrote:
>>
>> Hello guys! 
>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>
>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>
>>
>> def get_user(request):
>>>
>>  
>>
>> ..
>>> code
>>> .
>>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>>>  backend,request = request
>>> .
>>> code
>>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on 
>> this monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>>
>> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern 
>> Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object 
>> internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>>
>> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

ok, let me know if there would be any consensus and I'll change my solution 
according to maintainers consensus.

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 20:10:46 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> Django has managed this before by examining the function signature. Adding 
> a property directly onto the instance could cause some issues, for example 
> if there is already a user property. I guess this could be detected and a 
> deprecation warning issued though.
>
> Anyway, this is all academic unless there is consensus. 
>
> On 10 Jan 2018 19:00, "Sergey Glazyrin"  > wrote:
>
> We use function load_backend in django about 5 times in production code, 
> so, it shouldn't be a big change
> About signals idea: yes, I can implement it using signals abstraction 
> though I prefer to be tied to the "Builder" idea, there would no big 
> difference between signals and Builder implementation in this case because 
> load_backend always returns a new instance of the class, so, I expect no 
> threading problems, etc, it's just a way to distribute process of building 
> objects
> About adding request to get_user, I don't like it because then all 
> dependent of django projects will need to change backends, it would be 
> worst for community 
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:52:06 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>
>> I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran 
>> into a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user. 
>>
>> Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite simple, 
>> whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of Django seems 
>> like it would be harder to get consensus. 
>>
>> You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that 
>> is passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which is 
>> akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.
>>
>> On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  wrote:
>>
>>> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
>>> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
>>> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
>>> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
>>> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1], 
>>> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>>>
>>> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin 
>>> wrote:

 Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
 solve this problem.
 It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is 
 to to use django auth backend logic.

 середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included 
> (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 
>
> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something 
> couldn’t 
> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>
> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (
> sergey.gl...@gmail.com) wrote:
>
> Hello guys! 
> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
> inside of get_user auth backend function
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>
> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>
>
> def get_user(request):
>>
>  
>
> ..
>> code
>> .
>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>>  backend,request = request
>> .
>> code
>> .
>
>
>
> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on 
> this monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>
> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern 
> Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object 
> internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>
> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we 
> need to add
>
> def get_user(request):
>>
>> ...
>> code
>> ...
>>
>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
>> 
>> code
>> 
>
>
> and in another django package we subscribe to this object 
> initialization:
>
>
> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
>> obj.request = request
>> 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Tom Forbes]

Django has managed this before by examining the function signature. Adding
a property directly onto the instance could cause some issues, for example
if there is already a user property. I guess this could be detected and a
deprecation warning issued though.

Anyway, this is all academic unless there is consensus.

On 10 Jan 2018 19:00, "Sergey Glazyrin" 
wrote:

We use function load_backend in django about 5 times in production code,
so, it shouldn't be a big change
About signals idea: yes, I can implement it using signals abstraction
though I prefer to be tied to the "Builder" idea, there would no big
difference between signals and Builder implementation in this case because
load_backend always returns a new instance of the class, so, I expect no
threading problems, etc, it's just a way to distribute process of building
objects
About adding request to get_user, I don't like it because then all
dependent of django projects will need to change backends, it would be
worst for community

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:52:06 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran into
> a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user.
>
> Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite simple,
> whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of Django seems
> like it would be harder to get consensus.
>
> You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that is
> passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which is
> akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.
>
> On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  wrote:
>
>> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the
>> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution
>> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the
>> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for
>> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1],
>> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>>
>> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to
>>> solve this problem.
>>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to
>>> to use django auth backend logic.
>>>
>>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:

 I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a
 DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included
 (it’s not particularly pythonic either).

 Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad
 designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t
 you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the
 request object rather than monkeypatch Django?

 On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com)
 wrote:

 Hello guys!
 I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object
 inside of get_user auth backend function

 https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005

 I can patch it following way (function to be patched is
 django.contrib.auth.get_user)


 def get_user(request):
>


 ..
> code
> .
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>  backend,request = request
> .
> code
> .



 But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on
 this monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.

 Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern
 Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object
 internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)

 with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we
 need to add

 def get_user(request):
>
> ...
> code
> ...
>
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
> 
> code
> 


 and in another django package we subscribe to this object
 initialization:


 def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
> obj.request = request
> DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj:
> isinstance(obj, openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

We use function load_backend in django about 5 times in production code, 
so, it shouldn't be a big change
About signals idea: yes, I can implement it using signals abstraction 
though I prefer to be tied to the "Builder" idea, there would no big 
difference between signals and Builder implementation in this case because 
load_backend always returns a new instance of the class, so, I expect no 
threading problems, etc, it's just a way to distribute process of building 
objects
About adding request to get_user, I don't like it because then all 
dependent of django projects will need to change backends, it would be 
worst for community 

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:52:06 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran into 
> a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user. 
>
> Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite simple, 
> whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of Django seems 
> like it would be harder to get consensus. 
>
> You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that is 
> passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which is 
> akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.
>
> On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  
> wrote:
>
>> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
>> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
>> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
>> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
>> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1], 
>> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>>
>> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>>>
>>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
>>> solve this problem.
>>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to 
>>> to use django auth backend logic.
>>>
>>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:

 I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
 DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included 
 (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 

 Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
 designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
 you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
 request object rather than monkeypatch Django?

 On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com) 
 wrote:

 Hello guys! 
 I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
 inside of get_user auth backend function

 https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005

 I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
 django.contrib.auth.get_user)


 def get_user(request):
>
  

 ..
> code
> .
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>  backend,request = request
> .
> code
> .



 But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on 
 this monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.

 Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern 
 Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object 
 internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)

 with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we 
 need to add

 def get_user(request):
>
> ...
> code
> ...
>
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
> 
> code
> 


 and in another django package we subscribe to this object 
 initialization:


 def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
> obj.request = request
> DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: 
> isinstance(obj, openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)




 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
 Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
 an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com
  
 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Tom Forbes]

I would be in favour of a mechanism to help with this use case, I ran into
a somewhat similar issue when using JWTs and a non-model backed user.

Adding a user parameter seems like the easiest solution and quite simple,
whereas adding a builder class into this particular section of Django seems
like it would be harder to get consensus.

You could maybe get more traction if you suggested firing a signal that is
passed the auth instance as a parameter when it is initialized, which is
akin to your suggestion, however IMO that's still not a great idea.

On 10 Jan 2018 18:18, "Tim Graham"  wrote:

> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the
> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution
> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the
> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for
> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1],
> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>
> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to
>> solve this problem.
>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to
>> to use django auth backend logic.
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included
>>> (it’s not particularly pythonic either).
>>>
>>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad
>>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t
>>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the
>>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello guys!
>>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object
>>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>>
>>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>>
>>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is
>>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>>
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

>>>
>>>
>>> ..
 code
 .
  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
  backend,request = request
 .
 code
 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this
>>> monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>>>
>>> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern
>>> Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object
>>> internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>>>
>>> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need
>>> to add
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

 ...
 code
 ...

  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
 DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
 
 code
 
>>>
>>>
>>> and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:
>>>
>>>
>>> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
 obj.request = request
 DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj,
 openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ms
>>> gid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%
>>> 40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/django-developers/9ae497ad-3c48-4cb9-9122-
> 1b67c5186066%40googlegroups.com
> 

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

that would allow another python packages to subscribe to specific parts of 
building django objects and that would be very expandable solution

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:18:28 UTC+1 користувач Tim Graham написав:
>
> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1], 
> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>
> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
>> solve this problem.
>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to 
>> to use django auth backend logic.
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included 
>>> (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 
>>>
>>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
>>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello guys! 
>>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
>>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>>
>>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>>
>>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
>>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>>
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

>>>  
>>>
>>> ..
 code
 .
  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
  backend,request = request
 .
 code
 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this 
>>> monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>>>
>>> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern 
>>> Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object 
>>> internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>>>
>>> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need 
>>> to add
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

 ...
 code
 ...

  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
 DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
 
 code
 
>>>
>>>
>>> and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:
>>>
>>>
>>> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
 obj.request = request
 DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj, 
 openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/0330b444-af4c-419b-92d1-351bd28d6ffd%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

Yes, that would be a consensus but who knows the future, what if one day 
another django auth backend will need request in another method,
that's why I prefer the idea of implementing it into design pattern 
"Builder" way. It's much more cleaner solution, imho

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:18:28 UTC+1 користувач Tim Graham написав:
>
> Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
> solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
> doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
> authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
> monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1], 
> I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.
>
> [1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187
>
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>>
>> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
>> solve this problem.
>> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to 
>> to use django auth backend logic.
>>
>> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>>
>>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a 
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder would look very strange and out of place if included 
>>> (it’s not particularly pythonic either). 
>>>
>>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
>>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>>
>>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello guys! 
>>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
>>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>>
>>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>>
>>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
>>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>>
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

>>>  
>>>
>>> ..
 code
 .
  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
  backend,request = request
 .
 code
 .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this 
>>> monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>>>
>>> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern 
>>> Builder to simplify integration of another apps into django object 
>>> internals (it sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>>>
>>> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need 
>>> to add
>>>
>>> def get_user(request):

 ...
 code
 ...

  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
 DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
 
 code
 
>>>
>>>
>>> and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:
>>>
>>>
>>> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
 obj.request = request
 DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj, 
 openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/36c02bfb-fea7-4f29-aef4-546bffc064fd%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Tim Graham]

Without studying the openstack code much it's hard for me to say if the 
solution there is the best approach and that a more elegant solution 
doesn't exist. It looks like if we added 'request' to the signature of the 
authentication backend get_user() method, that would remove the need for 
monkey patching. We did a similar change for the authenticate() method [1], 
I'm not sure if there would be consensus to make the change.

[1] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/25187

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:12:55 PM UTC-5, Sergey Glazyrin wrote:
>
> Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
> solve this problem.
> It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to 
> to use django auth backend logic.
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>
>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a DjangoObjectBuilder 
>> would look very strange and out of place if included (it’s not particularly 
>> pythonic either). 
>>
>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>
>> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com) 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello guys! 
>> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
>> inside of get_user auth backend function
>>
>> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>>
>> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
>> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>>
>>
>> def get_user(request):
>>>
>>  
>>
>> ..
>>> code
>>> .
>>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>>>  backend,request = request
>>> .
>>> code
>>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this 
>> monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>>
>> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern Builder 
>> to simplify integration of another apps into django object internals (it 
>> sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>>
>> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need 
>> to add
>>
>> def get_user(request):
>>>
>>> ...
>>> code
>>> ...
>>>
>>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
>>> 
>>> code
>>> 
>>
>>
>> and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:
>>
>>
>> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
>>> obj.request = request
>>> DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj, 
>>> openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/9ae497ad-3c48-4cb9-9122-1b67c5186066%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

Btw, I see no way how do I use this auth_user.create_user_from_token to 
solve this problem.
It uses django contrib auth get_user function, so the proper place is to to 
use django auth backend logic.

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a DjangoObjectBuilder 
> would look very strange and out of place if included (it’s not particularly 
> pythonic either). 
>
> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>
> On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (sergey.gl...@gmail.com 
> ) wrote:
>
> Hello guys! 
> I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object 
> inside of get_user auth backend function
>
> https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005
>
> I can patch it following way (function to be patched is 
> django.contrib.auth.get_user)
>
>
> def get_user(request):
>>
>  
>
> ..
>> code
>> .
>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>>  backend,request = request
>> .
>> code
>> .
>
>
>
> But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this 
> monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.
>
> Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern Builder 
> to simplify integration of another apps into django object internals (it 
> sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)
>
> with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need 
> to add
>
> def get_user(request):
>>
>> ...
>> code
>> ...
>>
>>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
>> 
>> code
>> 
>
>
> and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:
>
>
> def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
>> obj.request = request
>> DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj, 
>> openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to django-develop...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to django-d...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com
>  
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/66604e89-236e-4bb2-935b-41b5ab8cc508%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

But the one thing I don't like is monkey patching. It's ok when you patch 
some whole implementation of something, for example, replace socket 
implementation in gevent with socket implementation in redis.
But when we need to patch something internally in function, that's bad
So, I want just to improve design of django to simplify it in future.
But again, I respect django developers opinion and it's up to you :)

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 19:00:56 UTC+1 користувач Sergey Glazyrin написав:
>
> Hello Tom
> Thank you for your reply
> Let me explain the situation again
>
> Openstack auth doesn't use django models at all, it uses keystoneauth 
> authorization logic
>
> And this logic requires some data from request to recognize user
>
> https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_auth/backend.py#L66
>
> In case of default django function get_user shouldn't have an access to 
> request because it uses django model to get a user but in case of openstack 
> it's totally different
>
> And unfortunately I see one way - patch django get_user method because we 
> need it for django-websocket-redis uwsgi process
>
>
> https://github.com/jrief/django-websocket-redis/blob/master/ws4redis/wsgi_server.py#L69
>
> Right now the problem is in django-websocket-redis uwsgi process the user 
> is always Anonymous because openstack auth is not able to recognize user 
> due to the request absence in openstackauthbackend.
>
> About my solution, well, I am happy to accept any ideas, my solution uses 
> one of design patterns to solve a problem. Well, the problem is simple: we 
> have few different packages which uses one class, but for some specific 
> case this class should have an access to another object, for such purposes, 
> there's a pattern Builder
>
> https://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/builder
>
> As I said, I am happy to accept any comments, ideas how to solve it more 
> properly
>
> Thank you again for your time.
>
> середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>>
>> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a DjangoObjectBuilder 
>> would look very strange and out of place if included (it’s not particularly 
>> pythonic either). 
>>
>> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
>> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
>> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
>> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5d053a62-1758-4fa2-9766-1eb1c6e6089b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Sergey Glazyrin]

Hello Tom
Thank you for your reply
Let me explain the situation again

Openstack auth doesn't use django models at all, it uses keystoneauth 
authorization logic

And this logic requires some data from request to recognize user
https://github.com/openstack/horizon/blob/master/openstack_auth/backend.py#L66

In case of default django function get_user shouldn't have an access to 
request because it uses django model to get a user but in case of openstack 
it's totally different

And unfortunately I see one way - patch django get_user method because we 
need it for django-websocket-redis uwsgi process

https://github.com/jrief/django-websocket-redis/blob/master/ws4redis/wsgi_server.py#L69

Right now the problem is in django-websocket-redis uwsgi process the user 
is always Anonymous because openstack auth is not able to recognize user 
due to the request absence in openstackauthbackend.

About my solution, well, I am happy to accept any ideas, my solution uses 
one of design patterns to solve a problem. Well, the problem is simple: we 
have few different packages which uses one class, but for some specific 
case this class should have an access to another object, for such purposes, 
there's a pattern Builder

https://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/builder

As I said, I am happy to accept any comments, ideas how to solve it more 
properly

Thank you again for your time.

середа, 10 січня 2018 р. 14:17:50 UTC+1 користувач Tom Forbes написав:
>
> I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a DjangoObjectBuilder 
> would look very strange and out of place if included (it’s not particularly 
> pythonic either). 
>
> Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad 
> designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t 
> you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the 
> request object rather than monkeypatch Django?
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/f84a929a-eead-48ae-a6ce-114a3a635320%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: ease patching Django object behavior in another django packages

[Tom Forbes]

I think Tim’s assessment in the ticket is on point, a DjangoObjectBuilder
would look very strange and out of place if included (it’s not particularly
pythonic either).

Seems like there might be a legitimate issue here (or maybe just bad
designs in OpenStack?), but unless I’m misunderstanding something couldn’t
you call ‘auth_user.create_user_from_token’ yourself and set it on the
request object rather than monkeypatch Django?

On 10 January 2018 at 12:22:01, Sergey Glazyrin (
sergey.glazyrin@gmail.com) wrote:

Hello guys!
I faced a situation when auth backend needs access to request object inside
of get_user auth backend function

https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/29005

I can patch it following way (function to be patched is
django.contrib.auth.get_user)


def get_user(request):
>


..
> code
> .
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
>  backend,request = request
> .
> code
> .



But I don't like this solution because I'll need to keep my eyes on this
monkey patch while django upgrade, etc, and it's very dirty hack.

Instead I propose to extend django behaviour using design pattern Builder
to simplify integration of another apps into django object internals (it
sounds hacky, but it's safe and simple to implement)

with change I proposed, the patch would be done on django level, we need to
add

def get_user(request):
>
> ...
> code
> ...
>
>  backend = load_backend(backend_path)
> DjangoObjectBuilder.do_initialize_object(backend, request)
> 
> code
> 


and in another django package we subscribe to this object initialization:


def add_request_to_backend(obj, request):
> obj.request = request
> DjangoObjectBuilder.add_custom_initializer(lambda obj: isinstance(obj,
> openstack_auth.Backend), add_request_to_backend)




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/5dffbda9-7239-489e-9530-564df9ab578e%40googlegroups.com

.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers  (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/CAFNZOJM6JqGC6CgxfdJDpMp2GutC8h%3DuCoWXiAb6xZ0f9om04g%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.