Thanks for fixing that. I look forward to seeing how you did it. I really
appreciate the amount of work that you have put into this.
Did you at least feel a little bit guilty inside whilst writing up a
> proposed solution that involved adding yet more classes? :-)
>
Maybe I felt a little
On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 09:46 -0400, Michael wrote:
[...]
> I have been looking at this for a while now and I am really stumped as
> to how to pull out the child model name from inside the field. I
> really hope this will be an easy fix, but I am about to give up.
> Should I file a ticket anyway,
> If that's all it is, then the fix should be pretty easy: for abstract
> base classes, the intermediate table name should be based on the name of
> the child model, not the abstract model. I can't drop everything right
> this minute to look at this, but I'm a little surprised that isn't
>
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 23:38 -0400, Michael wrote:
> I think I convoluted my case by putting that related_name in there.
> This doesn't work without the related_name option too.
>
> I was looking into it further and I realized that the problem with the
> syncdb is the fact that m2m_db_table is
I think I convoluted my case by putting that related_name in there. This
doesn't work without the related_name option too.
I was looking into it further and I realized that the problem with the
syncdb is the fact that m2m_db_table is the same on each inherited field.
Essentially this could be
On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 08:23 -0700, Michael Newman wrote:
> Imagine:
>
> from django.db import models
>
> class Mtmfield(models.Model):
> afield = models.TextField()
>
> class Place(models.Model):
> somefield = models.ManyToManyField(Mtmfield,
>
Imagine:
from django.db import models
class Mtmfield(models.Model):
afield = models.TextField()
class Place(models.Model):
somefield = models.ManyToManyField(Mtmfield,
related_name='a_name_that_cant_have_conflicts')
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Restaurant(Place):
7 matches
Mail list logo
