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.
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
Fixed #31416 -- Made autodetector find dependencies for MTI model creation on base fields removal. #12754
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall looks like it will work.
Simon wrote on the ticket about doing this with check_dependency
- was this not feasible?
It wasn't necessary from my perspective, and also someone else also thought it was unnecessary. And i did find out that adding the dependencies would get the job done. And Simon stated it may be related to |
Not sure why some checks failed after removing some redundant parts of the code. Is it configuration errors? |
If you read the logs, you'll see the build failed because Jenkins was trying to test a commit it couldn't get hold of: https://djangoci.com/job/pull-requests-bionic/database=postgis,label=bionic-pr,python=python3.8/5417/console For Django commit style, you should squash them all into one, titled after the PR: "Fixed #31416 -- FieldError when migrating field to new model subclass." This will cause a rebuild and that should pass. |
now all checks have passed! is there anything that i may need to check? much appreciated for the help! |
Hi @nanlliu I appreciate your eagerness, but please be patient. We're all doing Django work in our spare time. It can sometimes take me weeks to find the time to come back to a review. I think this PR is in good shape, but I suspect @charettes will want to review as he knows more about the migrations framework and commented on the ticket, and then a fellow will do a pass before merging it. They will get to it in their own time. Thanks, Adam |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changes look fine to me, looks like this is a simpler approach than what I had in mind.
93a24df
to
5df9bb2
Compare
@nanlliu Thanks 👍 Welcome aboard ⛵ I pushed small edits. |
…ation on base fields removal. Removing a base field must take place before adding a new inherited model that has a field with the same name.
Fixed ticket https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/31416.