[Django] #32382: Django 3.2 app config search prevents single-file apps
Django
------------------------------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: nobody
Type: Cleanup/optimization | Status: new
Component: Core (Other) | Version: 3.2
Severity: Normal | Keywords:
Triage Stage: Unreviewed | Has patch: 0
Needs documentation: 0 | Needs tests: 0
Patch needs improvement: 0 | Easy pickings: 0
UI/UX: 0 |
------------------------------------------------+------------------------
My third party package django-read-only is implemented as a single file
([pre-3.1-support source](https://github.com/adamchainz/django-read-
only/blob/e95530273fd75da34fd77b1625549ffd3840beaa/src/django_read_only.py)).
With Django <3.2's `default_app_config`, it could point to its app config
within the same module by defining `default_app_config`.
Now the AppConfig logic *requires* an `apps` submodule, which means apps
cannot be single-file modules but have to be packages.
To work around this in django-read-only I made it into package, left all
the logic in its `__init__.py`, and added a "dummy" `apps.py` that has
only the line `from django_read_only import DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig`
(moving the app config would complicate its implementation).
Could we make the apps logic not search for an 'apps' submodule in the
case of non-package modules, and instead check in the base module?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32382>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
Django
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: nobody
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Core (Other) | Version: 3.2
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Description changed by Adam Johnson:
Old description:
> My third party package django-read-only is implemented as a single file
> ([pre-3.1-support source](https://github.com/adamchainz/django-read-
> only/blob/e95530273fd75da34fd77b1625549ffd3840beaa/src/django_read_only.py)).
> With Django <3.2's `default_app_config`, it could point to its app config
> within the same module by defining `default_app_config`.
>
> Now the AppConfig logic *requires* an `apps` submodule, which means apps
> cannot be single-file modules but have to be packages.
>
> To work around this in django-read-only I made it into package, left all
> the logic in its `__init__.py`, and added a "dummy" `apps.py` that has
> only the line `from django_read_only import DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig`
> (moving the app config would complicate its implementation).
>
> Could we make the apps logic not search for an 'apps' submodule in the
> case of non-package modules, and instead check in the base module?
New description:
My third party package django-read-only is implemented as a single file
([https://github.com/adamchainz/django-read-
only/blob/e95530273fd75da34fd77b1625549ffd3840beaa/src/django_read_only.py
pre-3.1-support source]). With Django <3.2's `default_app_config`, it
could point to its app config within the same module by defining
`default_app_config`.
Now the AppConfig logic *requires* an `apps` submodule, which means apps
cannot be single-file modules but have to be packages.
To work around this in django-read-only I made it into package, left all
the logic in its `__init__.py`, and added a "dummy" `apps.py` that has
only the line `from django_read_only import DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig`
(moving the app config would complicate its implementation).
([https://github.com/adamchainz/django-read-
only/pull/37/commits/392056b4bbc1eb1ce25b159134e2ab114ca0cdcb commit ])
Could we make the apps logic not search for an 'apps' submodule in the
case of non-package modules, and instead check in the base module?
--
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32382#comment:1>
Django
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: nobody
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Core (Other) | Version: 3.2
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Mariusz Felisiak):
* status: new => closed
* resolution: => needsinfo
Comment:
`django_read_only==1.2.0` works fine as a single file (without
`default_app_config`) when you will use
`django_read_only.DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig` in the `INSTALLED_APPS`,
instead of `django_read_only`. It's niche, so I'm not sure if supporting
default app configs in the base module is worth additional complexity and
side-effects (such as e.g. [https://github.com/django/django-contrib-
comments/pull/168#issuecomment-766720277 clashes]), but we could evaluate
a patch.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32382#comment:2>
Django
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: nobody
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Core (Other) | Version: 3.2
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Comment (by Adam Johnson):
Yes that's true. It's probably not worth complicating things.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32382#comment:3>
Django
Reporter: Adam Johnson | Owner: nobody
Cleanup/optimization |
Component: Core (Other) | Version: 3.2
Keywords: | Triage Stage:
| Unreviewed
Has patch: 0 | Needs documentation: 0
Needs tests: 0 | Patch needs improvement: 0
Easy pickings: 0 | UI/UX: 0
Changes (by Mariusz Felisiak):
* resolution: needsinfo => wontfix
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/32382#comment:4>