django-blocks, django 1.1 and MySQL, for a change
MJ Ray
255 characters. Blocks has blocks.apps.aggregator.Feed.feed_url and
blocks.apps.aggregator.FeedItem.guid which are like that.
This causes a model validation error in Django 1.1 if used with MySQL
(as often happens).
As far as I can see, we'd have the same issue with the latest version
of django-blocks. Also, this is a theoretical problem with Django 1.0
but it just doesn't complain.
The fields are Feed.feed_url and FeedItem.guid. I'm wondering whether
it's reasonable to make them max_length=255, remove unique=True, or
what. I think max_length=255 is fine in most situations.
Is there a better fix?
Thanks for any feedback,
--
MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | software
www.software.coop http://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co
IMO only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html | .... op
kimus
be changed be a 'compressed' (md5, sha1, etc) version of the url to a
less then 255 limit and fix this problem.
Can you do that and give me a patch?
On 31 Mar, 18:34, MJ Ray <m...@phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> MySQL does not support unique or indexed character fields longer than
> 255 characters. Blocks has blocks.apps.aggregator.Feed.feed_url and
> blocks.apps.aggregator.FeedItem.guid which are like that.
>
> This causes a model validation error in Django 1.1 if used with MySQL
> (as often happens).
>
> As far as I can see, we'd have the same issue with the latest version
> of django-blocks. Also, this is a theoretical problem with Django 1.0
> but it just doesn't complain.
>
> The fields are Feed.feed_url and FeedItem.guid. I'm wondering whether
> it's reasonable to make them max_length=255, remove unique=True, or
> what. I think max_length=255 is fine in most situations.
>
> Is there a better fix?
>
> Thanks for any feedback,
> --
> MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster and LMS developer at | softwarewww.software.coophttp://mjr.towers.org.uk | .... co