On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:00 AM, Michael Bayer <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 18, 2014, at 10:21 AM, Stephan Hügel <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Yep, I'm using naming_convention, and can confirm that the drop operation >>> isn't being wrapped by f(). >>> >>> (And also autogenerate, for the avoidance of ambiguity) >> >> the rendering of drop_constraint does not include the "type" parameter (it >> probably should but that's a separate issue). However I see this parameter >> rendered in your script at >> https://gist.github.com/urschrei/541fec05a3a82d71cbe9. >> >> also I have added a test for this case and am not able to reproduce - the >> op.f() is rendered in the drop case for the unique constraint. >> >> are you sure this is straight autogenerate for the "drop" ? > > > still unsure about "type" but if i give the constraint a name, then we are > seeing the op.f() omitted, so that must be your case. ummm except that's the correct behavior depending on the convention in use I need to see your naming convention fully as well as your Table definition please, database in use as well -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy-alembic" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
