I've written four more tests. I've moved some of checks out of `__init__`
methods. I've changed `tag` to `register`. I've rebased against master. I've
improved documentation (added sections about filtering and silencing system
checks), but I'm still polishing it. Code is ready for final review except 
for
the issues I will mention in this post.

We probably cannot move checks of `primary_key` and `unique` living in
`FileField.__init__`. We test if one of these two parameters was passed; we
don't check their values. Consider that an user passes unique=False. This is
the default value, but nevertheless, this should result in an error. We
cannot check if the attributes where passed while performing system checks. 
I'm
not sure if I make myself clear.

We must reject fk/m2m to neither a model nor model name in `__init__`. Some
pieces of code (i.e. `RelatedField.contibute_to_class`) assume that
`self.to` is a Model or a string.

4. More important changes in code:
>> - Introduced RAW_SETTINGS_MODULE [1]. I use it in compatibility checks to 
>> test
>>   if `TEST_RUNNER` setting was overriden [2].
>
>  

Have a look at the internals of the diffsettings management command -- I'm 
> not sure RAW_SETTINGS_MODULE is needed.


The problem is that when a test is decorated by `override_settings`, we need
to test `settings._wrapped._wrapped`, otherwise we need to check
`settings._wrapped`.

2. I'm afraid that there is too little time to merge django-secure. 
>> September 16 is
>> suggested 'pencils down' date, so there are only less than two weeks (12 
>> days) +
>> one buffer week, because firm 'pencils down' date is September 23. Merging
>> django-secure in such little time is actually impossible -- we must 
>> through out
>> this task from schedule. I really apologize for that.
>
>  

This is obviously disappointing, but it's better to deliver something 
> complete than a half-attempt. If we can get the core framework into a good 
> state, merging django-secure is a self-contained task that we can address 
> as a follow-up commit.
>
 

Also -- the GSoC will come to an end, but that doesn't mean your 
> contributions to Django have to… :-)


Sure. However, after merging I would like to focus on other kinds of
contributing like reviewing tickets, replying on mailing list and so on) --
it's easy to get bored if you do the same job all the time.

- Introduced `BaseAppCache.get_models_from_apps` method [3]. This method 
>> returns
>>   all models of given set of apps (or of all apps if None is passed) and 
>> is used
>>   in `default_checks.py` [4].
>
>  

I'm not sure I follow why this is needed -- or why it isn't just 
> duplicating functionality from loading.get_models()?
>
 
`get_models(app=someapp)` let you get all models from *one* app. I notice 
that I
sometimes need to get all models from a *set* of apps.

I've just noticed that we need to implement `__str__` method for ModelAdmin
*class* (not its instances) so errors involving ModelAdmins are printed
correctly. I will work at that.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to