On 10/10/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 14, 7:06 am, "Russell Keith-Magee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > It's been a while since we had this discussion, but I would like to > revisit it, if that's okay. > > We now have the testserver command that loads a fixture and lets you > run the server to futz around. I think this represents a use case for > what we were talking about --since you're not running any tests, you > don't have a chance to put things in setUp and there's still the > problem of how to deal with objects that might have different id > numbers (specifically, content types and permissions, I think) > depending on how the apps are loaded. > > Should I work up a patch or is this not something people see as > necessary? I'm getting really annoyed about having to go into the > shell to add permissions when I want to test them...
This is a slightly different idea to the one that we were talking about before (or, at least, different to what I _thought_ you were talking about). Adding active syntax (e.g., function calls) to otherwise static fixtures isn't an appealing idea to me. However, what you're describing is a lot closer to being an analog of the management.py hooks - where you use the management.py trigger to load initial data. If you can come up with a good implementation, I'm not fundamentally opposed to including Python fixtures of the kind you're describing. Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django users" group. To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
