Thanks for the replies. All is working OK now. Not sure what was happening
yesterday. I think I was just having one of those days...
In case anyone else comes across this thread - the advice below is good: use
a normal shell and make sure to do a db.commit()
On 19 March 2011 14:25, rochacbruno <rochacbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In shell you need to fire db.commit() to persist changes.
>
>
> Em 19/03/2011, às 10:23, Tom Atkins <minkto...@gmail.com> escreveu:
>
> Hmm - I spoke too soon. Database changes work OK from controllers but not
> from shell...
>
> On 19 March 2011 13:03, Tom Atkins < <minkto...@gmail.com>
> minkto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Oops - my mistake - I was using Navicat to look at my sqllite database and
>> had left it open. hence sqllite db was locked.
>>
>>
>> On 19 March 2011 10:41, Tom Atkins < <minkto...@gmail.com>
>> minkto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Massimo - I was considering using accessible_query.
>>>
>>> However, I've now got a problem before I try that - auth.add_permission
>>> doesn't seem to be working:
>>>
>>> >>>> auth.add_permission(1, 'read', db.auth_user, 0)
>>> 1
>>>
>>> but when I look in the auth_permission table there are no entries. I've
>>> tried this with alternative syntax:
>>>
>>> >>>> auth.add_permission(1, 'read', db.auth_user)
>>> 2
>>>
>>> and tried other tables:
>>>
>>> >>>> auth.add_permission(1, 'read', db.post)
>>> 3
>>>
>>> but still no entries in auth_permission. Any ideas?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 March 2011 20:08, Massimo Di Pierro < <massimo.dipie...@gmail.com>
>>> massimo.dipie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> If you have given explicit permission to the group:
>>>>
>>>> group_id=auth.add_group('Super Admin')
>>>> auth.add_permission(group_id, 'read', db.mytable)
>>>>
>>>> then you can do:
>>>>
>>>> for row in db(auth.accessible_query('read',
>>>> db.mytable)).select(db.mytable.ALL): print row
>>>>
>>>> in the case being discussed mytable is auth_user
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 18, 2:38 pm, Tom Atkins <minkto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > Thank you - yes the double hit on the database was what made it seem
>>>> > inelegant to me.
>>>> >
>>>> > Your joined query works fine and I can work with the return data.
>>>> Any
>>>> > further improvements gratefully received! Hoping Massimo has an
>>>> undocumented
>>>> > super 1 liner! ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
