Yea...it would be so elegant too! Here is a "bug" filing: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/5390. It's been open for two years....
I understand that your really getting what you asked for, just the instance of the model you just saved but to me (and it seems you and a lot of other people), intuition leads people to write code that drives them nuts because its not really "post_transaction." On Jul 14, 4:08 am, Eugene Mirotin <emiro...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I understand right, the problem is that you want the signal after > all related fields are already saved. If so, this is exactly the > problem I have too. > You see, when you have such a relation (and, for example, edit the > parent object with inlined related objects from the admin page, Django > _has to_ save the parent object first, and only then it saves the > related objects (you can verify it by adding print statements to your > save methods or handlers and running the dev server from terminal). > The reason is that when you initially create the object, related > objects have to link to the existing object, so the parent object is > saved before them. > > On Jul 13, 9:27 pm, Ryan K <ryankas...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Recently I've been trying to get answers about the post_save signal > > behavior and perhaps have been asking too much of readers without > > narrowing down the problem enough myself. So here is my effort to ask > > a rather straightforward question: > > > The code that connects to the post_save signal, according to the > > signal docs, is passed three objects and I am only concerned about > > one: the instance that was saved. Now this instance has a > > ManyToManyField and what I am finding out according to be debugging is > > that the instance's ManyToMany field is NOT being updated after save > > is called. > > > So, for example, when the signal calls the handler (this is being done > > via the admin interface but it shouldn't matter) and I check > > instance.manytomanyfield, it does not show the most recent changes. > > What is the best way to "force" the update of the table so I can get > > accurate data from the ManyToMany field? Even if I explicitly do > > something like this: > > > def __init__(self, sender, instance): > > self.sender = sender > > self.instance = sender.objects.select_related().get > > (id=instance.id) > > > What seems like cached data is being when I test: > > > self.instance.manytomanyfield.all() > > > Can anyone help with this behavior? > > > Cheers, > > Ryan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
