Re: [Django] #8162: Changes to Permissions model
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Component: contrib.auth | Version: SVN
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Changes (by KristianDK):
* ui_ux: => 0
* easy: => 0
Comment:
Replying to [comment:11 kmtracey]:
> Making an existing field larger in the code without having any way to
migrate a database created with the old code level creates a situation
where the form-level validation code will accept as valid a string that
will not fit in the database field. The database will then promptly throw
an exception on the attempt to save the data. (Or if it's sqlite it will
just let you do that or if it's MySQL in non-strict mode it will just
quietly truncate the value). We cannot grow fields like this until we have
some ability to migrate existing DB schemas to match new definitions.
With the current availability of 3rd party migration apps, wouldn't it be
worth considering making the change and including migrations for e.g.
south and nashvegas? Could perhaps be implemented as a contrib app, with
management commands as helpers? After all, anyone should be able to do
this migration manually without too many problems.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:13>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Component: contrib.auth | Version: SVN
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
We 've come accross this error too many times (postgres and oracle). The
"name" column in "auth_permission" should be at least 100 characters long.
We always change it in every new installation of django. We 've had
absolutely no problems so far and our latest application handles 100s of
tables and vast amounts of data.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:14>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Component: contrib.auth | Version: SVN
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
I'm also hitting this problem, and believe that the name field length
should be increased to at least 100. It's an easy fix, and easy to migrate
existing deployments - just give it mention in the release notes which
good developers read when upgrading versions.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:15>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: nobody
Type: Bug | Status: new
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
Same here. We need to modify the django code every time we install a
fresh instance. I can't believe this bug has not been addressed yet.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:16>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
* owner: nobody => wilsoniya
* status: new => assigned
* has_patch: 1 => 0
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:17>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by shai):
Hi wilsoniya,
You just closed #17763 as a dupe of this one, ignoring comments 4 & 5 on
that ticket which propose a very viable and simple solution. 5 is my own,
I'm quoting it here:
>
> My own suggestion of a fix: Change
`django.contrib.auth.management._get_all_permissions` to read:
> {{{
> def _get_all_permissions(opts):
> "Returns (codename, name) for all permissions in the given opts."
> perms = []
> for action in ('add', 'change', 'delete'):
> perm_name = u'Can %s %s' % (action, opts.verbose_name_raw)
> if len(perm_name)>50:
> perm_name= perm_name[:40] + u'...' + perm_name[-7:]
> perms.append((_get_permission_codename(action, opts),
perm_name))
> return perms + list(opts.permissions)
> }}}
>
> Because the name is just used for UI anyway. Of course, you can play
with the "40" and "7" there -- that's what I thought was reasonable. And
perhaps the two-line snippet for "make display string fit in length"
should be factored out and used elsewhere.
>
> If a core developer finds the approach acceptable, but would rather have
this as a patch, just say so.
>
This is fully backwards-compatible in any self-respecting backend (any
permission whose name is affected by this could not have been saved in the
db).
It may generate a different perm_name for existing perms on sqlite and
some mysql configurations (it wouldn't change anything in existing
databases, but the same application in a new deployment will have
different perm_names). There too -- this is a UI string; for complete
Sqlite/!MySql backwards-compatibility, use `perm_name[:50]` instead of
`perm_name[:40] + u'...' + perm_name[-7:]`. If this route is taken, I
would prefer to limit this to only these backends, sacrificing a little
cross-database compatibility for the sake of more sensible UI elsewhere.
I must say, I find it odd that this suggestion has been so completely
ignored, not even rebuked.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:18>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
* cc: shai@… (added)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:19>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by michal.dtz@…):
I hit this bug today. Why just not make the fields longer and forget about
it?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:20>
Django
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Triage Stage: Someday/Maybe
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
Comment (by aaugustin):
Why not just read the comments before posting a question that's answered
above? ;)
(See comment 4.)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:21>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by timo):
* keywords: => schemamigration
* stage: Someday/Maybe => Accepted
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:22>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by shai):
#18866 has been fixed. Now, when this is fixed, we need to remember to un-
fix it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:23>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by mjtamlyn):
More accurately, the code from #18866 should stay, but the 39 changes to
something bigger. Just in case someone wants a verbose name of 500
characters. (Why???!)
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:24>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
That depends on how we fix this. If, instead of just making the name field
ridiculously long, we take the route from comment:18, then we really don't
need the code from #18866.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:25>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
To fix this, we don't need change schema to core models. We can make
default setting PERM_NAME_LENGTH=50 and use them in Permissions model name
field.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:26>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by russellm):
No, a setting isn't a fix for this.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:27>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tomek):
I see you guys have some problems with both changing this field size and
avoiding migrations enforcing. However, don't you think it's a bit crazy
that this totally surprising inconsistency of 100 letter verbose_name and
50 letter "can delete " + verbose_name remains totally unresolved for such
a long time?
Maybe that's the time to act a bit more definitely?!
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:28>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by russellm):
@tomek … and yet, in all the time that this critical, mind-numbingly
catastrophic bug has been in existence, Django has managed to grow in
popularity, and I'm having difficulty recalling the last time the topic
was raised on a mailing list for discussion.
There's a very good reason that this has bug has been unresolved for so
long - in the grand scheme of things, it isn't a huge problem. Yes, this
is a bug. However, it's a bug that only manifests if you have very long
table names and/or permission names, and even then, it the problem should
be revealed by a fairly cursory testing regimen. There is a known
workaround if you have this problem in practice - manually update the
table. And we have a proposed fix - we are just waiting on the
introduction of migrations. Contrast this with the wide range of known
problems that don't have workarounds, or manifest in common, subtle, or
untestable ways, or the feature improvements that have been used by *many*
more people than have been affected by this issue.
Now that we have migrations, we can look at implementing a formal fix for
this, and the other handful of schema-size related issues (e.g., the
length of the email field in the default User model). If this really is a
problem that you can't bear to look at, now would be a good time to look
at contributing a fix.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:29>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by tomek):
@russelm thanks a lot for your answer, I'm glad to hear migrations might
be an impulse to resolve this issue. Although I have no experience in
contributing to Django, I will surely consider your suggestion and
possibly fix it myself.
Yet short reply to first sentence of your comment:
Popularity of Django is undeniable but proves only general quality of
features and has no real relation with particular feature "Have you fixed
this wheel? No, but it doesn't matter, car looks great". Insane, huh?
Mentioned popularity seems completely irrelevant to the subject of
particular bug solving inability I intended to point.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:30>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by russellm):
@tomek Continuing your analogy - you're assuming we're talking about a
wheel on a car. My interpretation - and my comment - are pointing out that
we're *not* talking about a *wheel* on this car.
A wheel is an essential feature of a car, and the car is useless without
it. We have ample evidence to suggest that the problem isn't that serious.
What we're talking about the fact that the radiator cap on this car is
prone to leakage when you use the car as an endurance racer. *Most* owners
won't notice or care about the problem. However, there is a portion of the
population that *will* notice, and they are understandably concerned. We
acknowledge that this problem exists, but due to our manufacturing
process, the problem isn't easy for us to fix. If you're affected by this
problem, you can always go down the street to the endurance racing supply
depot and get a custom radiator cap that won't have the problem. And when
we move to our new factory, we'll be able to fix the problem permanently.
If we were a well funded project with resources to burn, then we might
have addressed this a lot sooner. However, as it stands, we're dependent
on the contributions of volunteers. And given that only a small proportion
of the user base has this problem, and only a small proportion of that
user base is willing to contribute a fix, the population of people willing
to help is very small. Add the pre-requisites for a fix, and the problem
goes unfixed for a long time.
This doesn't make this problem any less of a bug - it just means that you
need to factor in the whole picture when thinking about why this specific
bug hasn't been fixed.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:31>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
There is no validation right now for verbose_name less than 39 characters,
and after migrating the app with south, it will fail 'after' creating the
tables...so you have a database with all the tables, but no permission
rows added.
This is REALLY annoying and this bug is 6 years old. I understand there's
always something more important to do, but please it's time to fix it.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:32>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by anonymous):
Replying to [comment:32 anonymous]:
> There is no validation right now for verbose_name less than 39
characters, and after migrating the app with south, it will fail 'after'
creating the tables...so you have a database with all the tables, but no
permission rows added.
> This is REALLY annoying and this bug is 6 years old. I understand
there's always something more important to do, but please it's time to fix
it.
Agreed.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:33>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
* has_patch: 0 => 1
Comment:
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/2857 PR]
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:34>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by aaugustin):
I would go for 200 while we're there. I'm pretty sure someone will
complain that 100 isn't enough.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:35>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by russellm):
We should be able to be a bit more scientific that "100 or 200 will be big
enough". This is driven by identifier sizes, and those are known
quantities on all databases. We should be able to work out exactly what
the biggest identifier will be.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:36>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by timo):
I don't know of CharField limits other than "Any fields that are stored
with VARCHAR column types have their max_length restricted to 255
characters if you are using unique=True for the field." which isn't
applicable here.
Anyway, 255 would allow verbose name's up to 244 characters and is
basically a paragraph of text. I don't think permissions longer than that
would be useful.
Objections?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:37>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by shai):
In 18 months, I have yet to hear an argument against the solution
suggested in comment:18, which is back-portable as far back as we like.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:38>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by timo):
If we were starting from scratch, I think I'd choose to make
`Permission.name` a more reasonable length, not truncate it to some
arbitrary length.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:39>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by aaugustin):
I have an argument ;-) I don't find it a good idea to truncate model names
arbitrarily in permission descriptions because it isn't user friendly:
- users will be left wondering why the full name isn't shown;
- permissions for two different models could end with the same name after
being shortened that way.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:40>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by CollinAnderson):
Seems to me if we're making the database change, we might as well make it
255. I don't see an advantage to making it shorter.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:41>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
* cc: charettes (added)
Comment:
What about using a `TextField` instead?
This would lift the length limitation and shouldn't have any user
noticeable effect since this field is not queried by Django.
Do all backends support altering a `CharField` to a `TextField`? If it's
not the case we could ship three migrations:
1. Schema migration that creates the new text field;
2. Data migration that populates the new field;
3. Schema migration that removes the old char field and rename the new one
`name`.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:42>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by timo):
I don't see a need for `TextField` (especially given the potential added
complexity in migrations). Do you see a need for a `verbose_name` of more
than 244 characters?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:43>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: assigned
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by charettes):
Replying to [comment:43 timo]:
> I don't see a need for `TextField` (especially given the potential added
complexity in migrations). Do you see a need for a `verbose_name` of more
than 244 characters?
No, it seems like a sane limitation.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:44>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
* status: assigned => closed
* resolution: => fixed
Comment:
In [changeset:"cf252dbea66d9c4a84aa1bc8da93b5e5cc759b9a"]:
{{{
#!CommitTicketReference repository=""
revision="cf252dbea66d9c4a84aa1bc8da93b5e5cc759b9a"
Fixed #8162 -- Increased Permission.name max_length to 255 characters.
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:45>
Django
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: juliae | Owner: wilsoniya
Type: Bug | Status: closed
Component: contrib.auth | Version: master
Severity: Normal | Resolution: fixed
Keywords: schemamigration | Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: 1 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
---------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by Tim Graham <timograham@…>):
In [changeset:"f1783ee479608a8c4ab627d3be1bb9bd07846bb1"]:
{{{
#!CommitTicketReference repository=""
revision="f1783ee479608a8c4ab627d3be1bb9bd07846bb1"
Corrected Permission.max_length in docs; refs #8162.
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/8162#comment:46>