#33505: Inconsistent Behavior with Abstract Models and Signals
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: Ken Weaver | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: closed
Component: Database layer | Version: 3.2
(models, ORM) |
Severity: Normal | Resolution: invalid
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Mariusz Felisiak):
Replying to [comment:6 Ken Weaver]:
> I now understand why; I just checked and `Abstract.m2m_field.through`
itself is actually `None`. This makes sense (somewhat) since of course you
can't have a concrete many to many table for an abstract model.
Ahh, yes. You can set `sender` to `None` to receive events from any
sender.
> I would think one could change `ManyToManyField` to itself be some kind
of abstract model or a dummy class when attached to an abstract model, but
you will know more about the inners of Django to know if something like
that is feasible or justified.
I don't think it is feasible.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/33505#comment:7>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/068.0de7082eb276586bbaca43df6c3806e7%40djangoproject.com.
