Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Use future value of ManyToManyField to check if value would change #1271

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 24, 2021
Merged

Use future value of ManyToManyField to check if value would change #1271

merged 1 commit into from Dec 24, 2021

Conversation

manelclos
Copy link
Contributor

Problem

Issue #1270

How did you solve the problem?

Acceptance Criteria

No tests broke. Specific tests pending based on acceptance of the change.

@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Apr 16, 2021 •
edited

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.07%) to 98.143% when pulling ba3af50 on check-manytomany-changes into 0d4340f on main.

@manelclos manelclos force-pushed the check-manytomany-changes branch 3 times, most recently from a7b6911 to b348ffb Compare April 19, 2021 08:59
@matthewhegarty
Copy link
Contributor

Looks good. It would be ideal to add a unit test which confirms the bug, and perhaps refer to the issue id in the comment?

@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty mentioned this pull request May 1, 2021
Closed
@manelclos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@matthewhegarty you're right, I'll do some more work on it, moving to draft, thanks!

@manelclos manelclos marked this pull request as draft May 1, 2021 16:37
@manelclos manelclos force-pushed the check-manytomany-changes branch 2 times, most recently from 090caa9 to 3489f0f Compare May 2, 2021 05:36
@manelclos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@matthewhegarty I've added tests. I noticed that this PR also modifies the API, so would be a candidate to merge along #1278

@manelclos manelclos marked this pull request as ready for review May 2, 2021 06:15
@matthewhegarty
Copy link
Contributor

I noticed that this PR also modifies the API

Yes - it would probably affect a lot of users as well, because the skip_row() docstring recommends overriding the method.

I tried to think if there is anyway of achieving this without breaking the API, but couldn't think of a clean way.

I'm planning to modify #1278 to avoid breaking the API.

@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty mentioned this pull request May 5, 2021
Closed
@felixmeziere
Copy link

Any update on this issue? Still using the library from this branch 😬

@manelclos
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @felixmeziere, glad to know it is working for you, the testing and feedback is highly appreciated.

This PR is marked as breaking change as it will change some function signature. We plan to start working on a 3.0 release now that 2.6 is out.

@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty mentioned this pull request Dec 23, 2021
Closed
@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty changed the base branch from main to release-3-x December 24, 2021 10:42
@manelclos @matthewhegarty
use future value of ManyToManyField to check if value would change
cefe1b4 
add tests and reference the issue

added some notes to tests

updated changelog
@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty merged commit 4f1172a into release-3-x Dec 24, 2021
@matthewhegarty matthewhegarty deleted the check-manytomany-changes branch December 24, 2021 13:55
@manelclos
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @matthewhegarty! I need these changes and the branch is now gone. Is it safe to start using release-3-x branch?

@matthewhegarty
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @manelclos - yes it is a stable branch so you can use it for testing.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
breaking change
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet
4 participants
@manelclos @coveralls @matthewhegarty @felixmeziere