Introspect the USERNAME_FIELD on custom User models

[goodtune]

The library used to make the assumption that the USERNAME_FIELD was always going to be username however this is easily overloaded.

This allows testing of the following form:

class MyTest(TestCase):

    user_factory = MyUserFactory

    def test_some_feature(self):
        u1 = self.make_user()
        self.login(u1):
            self.assertTrue(True)

Assuming custom User model, such as:

class User(AbstractBaseUser, PermissionsMixin):

    email = EmailField(
        verbose_name='email address',
        max_length=255,
        unique=True,
    )

    USERNAME_FIELD = 'email'

[coveralls]

Coverage remained the same at 96.983% when pulling 4102f6e on goodtune:custom-user-model into 633d839 on revsys:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.03%) to 97.009% when pulling 3ff2ccf on goodtune:custom-user-model into 633d839 on revsys:master.

[coveralls]

Coverage increased (+0.03%) to 97.009% when pulling b7c31be on goodtune:custom-user-model into 633d839 on revsys:master.

[frankwiles]

Awesome this actually bit me on a project recently and I hadn't dived into it yet.

[goodtune]

No worries, I think I have left you with 1 small glitch - an import for Python 3.3 is failing for Django 1.9.

I am unfamiliar with the standard library for that version and what would be necessary to fix it.

[frankwiles]

No worries, Django 1.9 dropped support for 3.3 so it doesn't matter :)

Frank Wiles
Revolution Systems | http://www.revsys.com/
frank@revsys.com | (800) 647-6298

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Gary Reynolds notifications@github.com
wrote:

No worries, I think I have left you with 1 small glitch - an import for
Python 3.3 is failing for Django 1.9.

I am unfamiliar with the standard library for that version and what would
be necessary to fix it.

—
You are receiving this because you modified the open/close state.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#40 (comment)