Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm starting to see now why the core devs are reluctant to modify IntegerField.
I'm wondering if maybe Django should have a SignedIntegerField and UnsignedIntegerField as part of the core (for those that wish to have enforced 32-bit integers), with the same INT_MIN and INT_MAX from limits.h ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits.h). But there again, would this be considered un-pythonic or against the ethics of Django?
I guess really it should be up to MySQL to have strict mode by default. But, as this is unlikely to happen, could we perhaps consider having a commented out entry in the settings.py file that allows you to set strict mode for all SQL connections? Or, perhaps a documentation change, which explains easily to the user how to do it (Kinda like the storage_engine thing on http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#creating-your-tables ) .
Let me know your thoughts :)
Cal
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathieu AGOPIAN <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> I'm afraid there isn't such a thing as "a valid signed value", if we're > still talking about "size wise".
> For django (python), the integer you gave in the ticket is perfectly valid. > Here's a way for you to check that : > >>> s = '351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453' > >>> int(s) > 351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453L
> And indeed, an IntegerField validates that the content of the field can be > converted to an int this way (check django/forms/fields.py line 230).
> So definitely, as Alex pointed, this is an issue on MySQL's side, not > Django's. > I believe this can't (shan't?) be fixed at Django's level, as there's no > "size" limitation for the IntegerField, as you would have on a CharField > with the *max_length* attribute.
> And no, limiting the length of the string won't work, as "2147483647" isn't > the same length as "-2147483647", but is the same length as "9999999999" (if > we're taking the example of 2^32-1 as the max SIGNED INT value).
> my two cents ;)
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
The only thing that i could imagine regarding "fixing" this issue
would indeed be a documentation addition in the MySQL (or MySQLdb)
part of the http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/ page,
explaining the possible issue with integers that are too large to fit
in the appropriate mysql column (though i'm not sure how all this
works, as i'm far from a MySQL or ORM expert).
Specifically, explaining how to set the sql_mode to "traditional" as
explained by kmtracey (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/ 15923#comment:10) I believe.
Let's see if there's anyone reading this mailing list showing interest
about this, and/or feel free to create a feature request on trac, and
see if it's accepted.
On a side note, as python doesn't seem to have any issue with large
integers, i guess you could subclass the IntegerField, and add to it's
validation a check to see if the resulting integer can be stored in a
32 bits using either a simple comparison, like the following:
-int('1' * 31, 2) < int(field_value) < int('1' * 31, 2)
Mathieu
On Apr 30, 8:31 pm, "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
> Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm starting to see now why the core
> devs are reluctant to modify IntegerField.
> I'm wondering if maybe Django should have a SignedIntegerField and
> UnsignedIntegerField as part of the core (for those that wish to have
> enforced 32-bit integers), with the same INT_MIN and INT_MAX from limits.h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits.h). But there again, would this be
> considered un-pythonic or against the ethics of Django?
> I guess really it should be up to MySQL to have strict mode by default. But,
> as this is unlikely to happen, could we perhaps consider having a commented
> out entry in the settings.py file that allows you to set strict mode for all
> SQL connections? Or, perhaps a documentation change, which explains easily
> to the user how to do it (Kinda like the storage_engine thing onhttp://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#creating-your-tables) .
> Let me know your thoughts :)
> Cal
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathieu AGOPIAN
> <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm afraid there isn't such a thing as "a valid signed value", if we're
> > still talking about "size wise".
> > For django (python), the integer you gave in the ticket is perfectly valid.
> > Here's a way for you to check that :
> > >>> s = '351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453'
> > >>> int(s)
> > 351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453L
> > And indeed, an IntegerField validates that the content of the field can be
> > converted to an int this way (check django/forms/fields.py line 230).
> > So definitely, as Alex pointed, this is an issue on MySQL's side, not
> > Django's.
> > I believe this can't (shan't?) be fixed at Django's level, as there's no
> > "size" limitation for the IntegerField, as you would have on a CharField
> > with the *max_length* attribute.
> > And no, limiting the length of the string won't work, as "2147483647" isn't
> > the same length as "-2147483647", but is the same length as "9999999999" (if
> > we're taking the example of 2^32-1 as the max SIGNED INT value).
> > my two cents ;)
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Django developers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
Do you think there would be much chance in having these two field types included in the core? If so, should I create a patch for fields.py and submit??
As for the MySQL strict mode, I'll submit a documentation patch, and see if it gets accepted :)
On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Mathieu AGOPIAN <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> The only thing that i could imagine regarding "fixing" this issue > would indeed be a documentation addition in the MySQL (or MySQLdb) > part of the http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/ page, > explaining the possible issue with integers that are too large to fit > in the appropriate mysql column (though i'm not sure how all this > works, as i'm far from a MySQL or ORM expert). > Specifically, explaining how to set the sql_mode to "traditional" as > explained by kmtracey (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/ > 15923#comment:10) I believe.
> Let's see if there's anyone reading this mailing list showing interest > about this, and/or feel free to create a feature request on trac, and > see if it's accepted.
> On a side note, as python doesn't seem to have any issue with large > integers, i guess you could subclass the IntegerField, and add to it's > validation a check to see if the resulting integer can be stored in a > 32 bits using either a simple comparison, like the following: > -int('1' * 31, 2) < int(field_value) < int('1' * 31, 2)
> Mathieu
> On Apr 30, 8:31 pm, "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]" > <cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote: > > Hey Mathieu,
> > Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm starting to see now why the core > > devs are reluctant to modify IntegerField.
> > I'm wondering if maybe Django should have a SignedIntegerField and > > UnsignedIntegerField as part of the core (for those that wish to have > > enforced 32-bit integers), with the same INT_MIN and INT_MAX from > limits.h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits.h). But there again, would > this be > > considered un-pythonic or against the ethics of Django?
> > I guess really it should be up to MySQL to have strict mode by default. > But, > > as this is unlikely to happen, could we perhaps consider having a > commented > > out entry in the settings.py file that allows you to set strict mode for > all > > SQL connections? Or, perhaps a documentation change, which explains > easily > > to the user how to do it (Kinda like the storage_engine thing onhttp:// > docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#creating-your-tables) .
> > Let me know your thoughts :)
> > Cal
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathieu AGOPIAN > > <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > I'm afraid there isn't such a thing as "a valid signed value", if we're > > > still talking about "size wise".
> > > For django (python), the integer you gave in the ticket is perfectly > valid. > > > Here's a way for you to check that : > > > >>> s = '351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453' > > > >>> int(s) > > > 351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453L
> > > And indeed, an IntegerField validates that the content of the field can > be > > > converted to an int this way (check django/forms/fields.py line 230).
> > > So definitely, as Alex pointed, this is an issue on MySQL's side, not > > > Django's. > > > I believe this can't (shan't?) be fixed at Django's level, as there's > no > > > "size" limitation for the IntegerField, as you would have on a > CharField > > > with the *max_length* attribute.
> > > And no, limiting the length of the string won't work, as "2147483647" > isn't > > > the same length as "-2147483647", but is the same length as > "9999999999" (if > > > we're taking the example of 2^32-1 as the max SIGNED INT value).
> > > my two cents ;)
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Django developers" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > django-developers@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
I really can't tell if those two new fields would be integrated in
core, either wait for feedback here, and/or give it a try with a
ticket (and i'm pretty sure it'll land in "Design Decision Needed").
On May 1, 2:42 pm, "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]"
> Do you think there would be much chance in having these two field types
> included in the core? If so, should I create a patch for fields.py and
> submit??
> As for the MySQL strict mode, I'll submit a documentation patch, and see if
> it gets accepted :)
> On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Mathieu AGOPIAN
> <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > The only thing that i could imagine regarding "fixing" this issue
> > would indeed be a documentation addition in the MySQL (or MySQLdb)
> > part of thehttp://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/page,
> > explaining the possible issue with integers that are too large to fit
> > in the appropriate mysql column (though i'm not sure how all this
> > works, as i'm far from a MySQL or ORM expert).
> > Specifically, explaining how to set the sql_mode to "traditional" as
> > explained by kmtracey (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/ > > 15923#comment:10) I believe.
> > Let's see if there's anyone reading this mailing list showing interest
> > about this, and/or feel free to create a feature request on trac, and
> > see if it's accepted.
> > On a side note, as python doesn't seem to have any issue with large
> > integers, i guess you could subclass the IntegerField, and add to it's
> > validation a check to see if the resulting integer can be stored in a
> > 32 bits using either a simple comparison, like the following:
> > -int('1' * 31, 2) < int(field_value) < int('1' * 31, 2)
> > > Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm starting to see now why the core
> > > devs are reluctant to modify IntegerField.
> > > I'm wondering if maybe Django should have a SignedIntegerField and
> > > UnsignedIntegerField as part of the core (for those that wish to have
> > > enforced 32-bit integers), with the same INT_MIN and INT_MAX from
> > limits.h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits.h). But there again, would
> > this be
> > > considered un-pythonic or against the ethics of Django?
> > > I guess really it should be up to MySQL to have strict mode by default.
> > But,
> > > as this is unlikely to happen, could we perhaps consider having a
> > commented
> > > out entry in the settings.py file that allows you to set strict mode for
> > all
> > > SQL connections? Or, perhaps a documentation change, which explains
> > easily
> > > to the user how to do it (Kinda like the storage_engine thing onhttp://
> > docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#creating-your-tables) .
> > > Let me know your thoughts :)
> > > Cal
> > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathieu AGOPIAN
> > > <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > I'm afraid there isn't such a thing as "a valid signed value", if we're
> > > > still talking about "size wise".
> > > > For django (python), the integer you gave in the ticket is perfectly
> > valid.
> > > > Here's a way for you to check that :
> > > > >>> s = '351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453'
> > > > >>> int(s)
> > > > 351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453L
> > > > And indeed, an IntegerField validates that the content of the field can
> > be
> > > > converted to an int this way (check django/forms/fields.py line 230).
> > > > So definitely, as Alex pointed, this is an issue on MySQL's side, not
> > > > Django's.
> > > > I believe this can't (shan't?) be fixed at Django's level, as there's
> > no
> > > > "size" limitation for the IntegerField, as you would have on a
> > CharField
> > > > with the *max_length* attribute.
> > > > And no, limiting the length of the string won't work, as "2147483647"
> > isn't
> > > > the same length as "-2147483647", but is the same length as
> > "9999999999" (if
> > > > we're taking the example of 2^32-1 as the max SIGNED INT value).
> > > > my two cents ;)
> > > > --
> > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > Groups
> > > > "Django developers" group.
> > > > To post to this group, send email to
> > django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Django developers" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
> I really can't tell if those two new fields would be integrated in > core, either wait for feedback here, and/or give it a try with a > ticket (and i'm pretty sure it'll land in "Design Decision Needed").
> On May 1, 2:42 pm, "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]" > <cal.leem...@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote: > > Yeah, subclassing sounds the way forward. I was thinking something like:
> > Do you think there would be much chance in having these two field types > > included in the core? If so, should I create a patch for fields.py and > > submit??
> > As for the MySQL strict mode, I'll submit a documentation patch, and see > if > > it gets accepted :)
> > On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 11:58 AM, Mathieu AGOPIAN > > <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > The only thing that i could imagine regarding "fixing" this issue > > > would indeed be a documentation addition in the MySQL (or MySQLdb) > > > part of thehttp://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/page, > > > explaining the possible issue with integers that are too large to fit > > > in the appropriate mysql column (though i'm not sure how all this > > > works, as i'm far from a MySQL or ORM expert). > > > Specifically, explaining how to set the sql_mode to "traditional" as > > > explained by kmtracey (http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/ > > > 15923#comment:10) I believe.
> > > Let's see if there's anyone reading this mailing list showing interest > > > about this, and/or feel free to create a feature request on trac, and > > > see if it's accepted.
> > > On a side note, as python doesn't seem to have any issue with large > > > integers, i guess you could subclass the IntegerField, and add to it's > > > validation a check to see if the resulting integer can be stored in a > > > 32 bits using either a simple comparison, like the following: > > > -int('1' * 31, 2) < int(field_value) < int('1' * 31, 2)
> > > > Thanks for taking the time to reply. I'm starting to see now why the > core > > > > devs are reluctant to modify IntegerField.
> > > > I'm wondering if maybe Django should have a SignedIntegerField and > > > > UnsignedIntegerField as part of the core (for those that wish to have > > > > enforced 32-bit integers), with the same INT_MIN and INT_MAX from > > > limits.h (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits.h). But there again, > would > > > this be > > > > considered un-pythonic or against the ethics of Django?
> > > > I guess really it should be up to MySQL to have strict mode by > default. > > > But, > > > > as this is unlikely to happen, could we perhaps consider having a > > > commented > > > > out entry in the settings.py file that allows you to set strict mode > for > > > all > > > > SQL connections? Or, perhaps a documentation change, which explains > > > easily > > > > to the user how to do it (Kinda like the storage_engine thing > onhttp:// > > > docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/databases/#creating-your-tables) .
> > > > Let me know your thoughts :)
> > > > Cal
> > > > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Mathieu AGOPIAN > > > > <mathieu.agop...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> > > > > I'm afraid there isn't such a thing as "a valid signed value", if > we're > > > > > still talking about "size wise".
> > > > > For django (python), the integer you gave in the ticket is > perfectly > > > valid. > > > > > Here's a way for you to check that : > > > > > >>> s = '351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453' > > > > > >>> int(s) > > > > > 351760125423456632454565345363453423453465345453L
> > > > > And indeed, an IntegerField validates that the content of the field > can > > > be > > > > > converted to an int this way (check django/forms/fields.py line > 230).
> > > > > So definitely, as Alex pointed, this is an issue on MySQL's side, > not > > > > > Django's. > > > > > I believe this can't (shan't?) be fixed at Django's level, as > there's > > > no > > > > > "size" limitation for the IntegerField, as you would have on a > > > CharField > > > > > with the *max_length* attribute.
> > > > > And no, limiting the length of the string won't work, as > "2147483647" > > > isn't > > > > > the same length as "-2147483647", but is the same length as > > > "9999999999" (if > > > > > we're taking the example of 2^32-1 as the max SIGNED INT value).
> > > > > my two cents ;)
> > > > > -- > > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > Groups > > > > > "Django developers" group. > > > > > To post to this group, send email to > > > django-developers@googlegroups.com. > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
> > > -- > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups > > > "Django developers" group. > > > To post to this group, send email to > django-developers@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > > > For more options, visit this group at > > >http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Django developers" group. > To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > django-developers+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en.
