On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 09:59:39AM -0500, Mike Bayer wrote: > I see in > > batch_op.alter_column(name, type_=sa.Integer(), > existing_type=sa.Boolean()) > > you aren't giving it the constraint name in the existing_type, that's > actually where the > "_unnamed_" is coming from.
Yeah, I've been able to trace the value that far, but... I'm afraid I
don't understand at which point the naming convention gets into play,
or what the exact rules are.
For the record, in the naming convention I'm using, I have
"uq": "uq_%(table_name)s_%(column_0_name)s"
i.e. no %(constraint_name)s. Somehow, during a op.create_table, the
naming convention does apply to the auto-generated constraint, but for
some reason, it does not seem to in this case.
Actually, I'm not even certain how the naming convention gets picked
up in a regular migration during a create_table – I don't pass it as
an argument there, and I don't pass the resulting constraint name to
Boolean() either; the only place where the naming convention is set is
the target_metadata, which, in my understanding, was only used for
auto-generation...?
Michal
--
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.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
