contrib.auth Newforms?
Michael Newman
newforms admin branch. I posted my original question on django-users:
https://groups.google.com/group/django-users/browse_thread/thread/47b6fdc09d9de07c
. Working backwards throughout the day, I noticed that
django.contrib.auth.forms used old forms. For the life of me I tried
to find a patch or request in the trac on this and I couldn't. To
quickly get my site up and running I am currently almost complete a
new forms.py and changes in views.py that use new forms and solves my
mystery error.
Is there something I am missing? Is there a reason that auth is not
ported to new forms yet on the newforms admin? If that reason is time,
can I offer this (soon to be complete) port? I just need a little
guidance from someone who knows more on why it seems I am the only one
to have noticed this. Thanks,
Michael Newman
Karen Tracey
It's been noticed by at least a couple of other people, since there's a ticket open for it which references a 2nd that was closed as a dup:
http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6083
I think both tickets have patches as well. Probably no one has yet had time to get this finished up in newforms-admin. Trying out one of the existing patches and providing feedback on it in the ticket would likely be helpful.
Karen
Michael Newman
managed to almost duplicate that patch verbatim in the last 12 hours.
Shouldn't this be marked as a block to the trunk merge? When I didn't
see it there I thought that I had to have been going crazy.
This ticket is a duplicate of the error that I got and perhaps should
be removed: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6572
Many thanks again, Michael
On Feb 13, 5:01 pm, "Karen Tracey" <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I hit a little problem last night with registering a new user in the
> > newforms admin branch. I posted my original question on django-users:
>
Karen Tracey
Thanks for passing that link along. Worse part is that I seriously
managed to almost duplicate that patch verbatim in the last 12 hours.
Shouldn't this be marked as a block to the trunk merge? When I didn't
see it there I thought that I had to have been going crazy.
This ticket is a duplicate of the error that I got and perhaps should
be removed: http://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6572
Many thanks again, Michael
Too bad about the duplicated work, but it was probably a learning experience anyway, right? So not entirely useless.
Hmm, that ticket (6083) specifies a version of "SVN", therefore it wasn't included in the sweep of marking newforms-admin tickets as either blocking merge or not. Should the migration of auth to newforms be part of the newforms-admin branch? Sure, admin uses auth, but newforms-admin doesn't require that auth use newforms (I've been running on the newforms-admin branch w/ old auth forms fine), and auth is used outside of admin, so it isn't clear to me that migrating auth to newforms is part of the newforms-admin work. But honestly I haven't had time to look into what exactly the problems are that you (and others) have been hitting in this area, so maybe I'm missing some reason why migrating auth to newforms should be done first on newforms-admin instead of just doing it on trunk.
As for that other ticket, you could return it yourself as a dup of the one that is still open for the problem. Just fill in some settings here: http://code.djangoproject.com/settings so you don't show up as "Anonymous". Better if it's done by someone who actually has a clue with regard to the problem reported, and that wouldn't be me.
Cheers,
Karen
Karen Tracey
As for that other ticket, you could return it yourself as a dup of the one that is still open for the problem. Just fill in some settings here: http://code.djangoproject.com/settings so you don't show up as "Anonymous". Better if it's done by someone who actually has a clue with regard to the problem reported, and that wouldn't be me.
I meant to say close, not return. (Return would be the right term for an old defect tracking system I used to use. In trac you close it as a dup.)
Karen
Russell Keith-Magee
> On Feb 13, 2008 6:50 PM, Michael Newman <newma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm, that ticket (6083) specifies a version of "SVN", therefore it wasn't
> included in the sweep of marking newforms-admin tickets as either blocking
> merge or not. Should the migration of auth to newforms be part of the
> newforms-admin branch?
As I understand the plan, yes. My understanding has been that the
newforms-admin is about removing the dependency on oldforms. The merge
of newforms-admin will be the point at which oldforms gets removed
permanently. I have a recollection that this has been stated in the
past as part of the grand plan, butI can't put my finger on a
reference to confirm this at the moment.
> But honestly I haven't had time to look into what
> exactly the problems are that you (and others) have been hitting in this
> area, so maybe I'm missing some reason why migrating auth to newforms should
> be done first on newforms-admin instead of just doing it on trunk.
It's mostly just a matter of managing the change. We'd rather tell
people _once_ that there are a bunch of changes that need to be made,
rather than trickle lots of little changes, especially when it will be
a big change like deprecating newforms.
Yours,
Russ Magee %-)
Michael Newman
ticket, I realized that contrib.comments still uses old forms as well.
If Russ is right (and I think he is), then that will need to be
rewritten too. I will gladly do this considering I got my old form
converting down when I rewrote auth just to find out that it was
already done. Before I start on that, has anyone seen any tickets that
might already contain a patch?
On Feb 13, 8:38 pm, "Russell Keith-Magee" <freakboy3...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 14, 2008 9:39 AM, Karen Tracey <kmtra...@gmail.com> wrote:
Malcolm Tredinnick
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 05:50 -0800, Michael Newman wrote:
> For me this was like opening pandora's box. As I am following that
> ticket, I realized that contrib.comments still uses old forms as well.
> If Russ is right (and I think he is), then that will need to be
> rewritten too.
The idea is to replace contrib.comments a bit prior to 1.0. So patches
to the existing contrib.comments probably aren't that useful at the
moment. Jacob's already done a lot of the work on the rewrite. Stay away
from that for the time being.
Malcolm
--
The only substitute for good manners is fast reflexes.
http://www.pointy-stick.com/blog/
Michael Newman
> The idea is to replace contrib.comments a bit prior to 1.0. So patches
> to the existing contrib.comments probably aren't that useful at the
> moment. Jacob's already done a lot of the work on the rewrite. Stay away
> from that for the time being.
because that patch, as I apply it, still has admin.views.auth.py in it
which was removed from the new-forms admin at 6012? I am about to
submit a few changes that (I hope) fixes that, but I wouldn't want to
distract from that marvelous work that all the Django Developers do.
By the way, once again, a big thank you.
Malcolm Tredinnick
On Thu, 2008-02-14 at 07:12 -0800, Michael Newman wrote:
>
> > to the existing contrib.comments probably aren't that useful at the
> > moment. Jacob's already done a lot of the work on the rewrite. Stay away
> > from that for the time being.
>
> That's why I ask before I do. Is Jacob also redoing the auth system
The auth system is (more or less) completely unrelated to comments, as
far as I'm aware. I think you might be confusing multiple unrelated
things here. You're filtering things based on "uses oldforms" or not.
I'm just splintering off a portion and saying "don't worry about that
bit just yet".
All I wanted to point out is that going nuts and extending into
django.contrib.comments is probably slightly duplicated effort at this
moment in time. We can live with the current status quo in that
directory for now (the only patches worth applying are where changes
elsewhere would mean comments completely break, so patching comments to
work again would be worthwhile).
Cheers,
Malcolm
--
Why be difficult when, with a little bit of effort, you could be
impossible.
http://www.pointy-stick.com/blog/