Na odstraňovanie správ v tejto skupine nemáte povolenie
Kopírovať odkaz
Nahlásiť správu
Ak chcete nahlásiť správu, prihláste sa
Zobraziť pôvodnú správu
Buď sú e‑mailové adresy tejto skupiny anonymné, alebo na zobrazenie pôvodnej správy potrebujete povolenie zobraziť si e‑mailové adresy členov
komu: Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)
During a review session I noticed the existence of `DjangoRuntimeWarning`[1] which was introduced in order to be subclassed to warn about about cache keys that are not compatible with Memcache[2].
As our test suite demonstrate subclassing `RuntimeWarning` can be quite useful when you want to consider some of them as errors[3] or simply ignore them. I'm sure some of you will remember the pesky naive datetime warnings that were raised when using the SQLite3 backend with IPython when timezone support was introduced.
While reviewing a proposed change where I suggested introducing another `DjangoRuntimeWarning` just like we do with the cache key warning Claude noted that we should always use such a patten or simply drop it[4] as a quick `grep RuntimeWarning django -r` revealed the cache key warning was the only occurence of `DjangoRuntimeWarning`.
While I don't think subclassing `DjangoRuntimeWarning` for every internal use of `warnings.warn` is required I believe using `DjangoRuntimeWarning` instead of `RuntimeWarning` would make sense.
Na odstraňovanie správ v tejto skupine nemáte povolenie
Kopírovať odkaz
Nahlásiť správu
Ak chcete nahlásiť správu, prihláste sa
Zobraziť pôvodnú správu
Buď sú e‑mailové adresy tejto skupiny anonymné, alebo na zobrazenie pôvodnej správy potrebujete povolenie zobraziť si e‑mailové adresy členov
komu: Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)
I think warnings.filterwarnings(RuntimeWarning, module="django..") might allow filtering without a subclass?
According to the ticket, Carl offered the version of the patch with DjangoRuntimeWarning "following design discussion with Russell K-M, Malcolm T, Jannis L, and Jeremy Dunck." (in case any of them are reading this and remember the discussion from 6 years ago) [0].