* ui_ux: => 0
* easy: => 0
Comment:
#16726 was a dupe.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:8>
Django <https://code.djangoproject.com/>
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
* needs_better_patch: 0 => 1
* needs_tests: 0 => 1
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:9>
* owner: nobody => Seth Thoburn
* needs_better_patch: 1 => 0
* status: new => assigned
* needs_tests: 1 => 0
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:10>
* has_patch: 0 => 1
Comment:
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/11047 PR]
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:11>
* needs_docs: 0 => 1
* needs_tests: 0 => 1
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:12>
* owner: Seth Thoburn => (none)
* status: assigned => new
* easy: 0 => 1
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:13>
* owner: (none) => AbhigyaShridhar
* status: new => assigned
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:14>
* owner: AbhigyaShridhar => (none)
* status: assigned => new
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:15>
* owner: (none) => Chinmoy
* status: new => assigned
Comment:
This is a rather old ticket. But the patch was not finalized. It's still
open to work right?
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:16>
Comment (by Chinmoy):
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/14784 PR]
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:17>
* needs_docs: 1 => 0
* needs_tests: 1 => 0
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:18>
Comment (by Chinmoy):
Can someone have a look at the PR. The doc tests seem to complain about a
spelling mistake.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:19>
* needs_better_patch: 0 => 1
Comment:
Replying to [comment:19 Chinmoy]:
> Can someone have a look at the PR. The doc tests seem to complain about
a spelling mistake.
I requested some changes there. From my side the doc test is unable to
download the logs so I can't help in the failing action.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:20>
* needs_better_patch: 1 => 0
Comment:
I've applied the necessary changes.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:21>
* status: assigned => closed
* resolution: => wontfix
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:24>
Comment (by Carlton Gibson):
I think we should `wontfix` this. Copying my
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/14784#pullrequestreview-898610549
comment from the PR]:
> I have to say that after 14 years I think we should probably close this
as wontfix. 😬
>
> I think the new decorator is likely to cause more confusion that it'll
solve.
>
> Specifically, it's only going to be appropriate for filters already
marked @stringfilter — that's fine, in theory, but that's not documented
at all — and it's going to be anything but clear to document — and we're
going to see a whole load of reports saying @autoescape_aware doesn't work
with my filter.
>
> There's already a way to do this, and the proposed decorator isn't
sufficiently robust to cover all cases.
>
> Also, as evidenced by those 14 years, I'm not convinced the saving is
all that great:
>
> if autoescape:
> esc = conditional_escape
> else:
> esc = lambda x: x
> … OK, yes. It's slightly repetitive. If it really bothered me I could
write a make_escape() factory function to remove the duplication. But, on
the other hand, it's clear: there's no question of what the behaviour is,
and I don't have to go looking into the source to see how the parameters
get applied.
>
> Summary, I'm not at all convinced the proposed decorator pays its way.
> 🤔
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:22>
Comment (by Mariusz Felisiak):
> I think we should `wontfix` this.
Agreed.
--
Ticket URL: <https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/6135#comment:23>