Skip to content

Conversation

Andrew-Chen-Wang
Copy link
Contributor

@Andrew-Chen-Wang Andrew-Chen-Wang commented Dec 23, 2021

Description of the Change

I wanted to double check that 4.0.1 wouldn't create a new migration. Turns out, I missed a comment from the PR that mentions how a migration would still be created. The reason is because of the related_name using the placeholder itself now rather than using "oauth2_provider".

Fortunately, this migration isn't as drastic as the auth.User one which would have deleted data... Let me know if I'm missing anything else.

Checklist

  • PR only contains one change (considered splitting up PR)
  • unit-test added
  • documentation updated
  • CHANGELOG.md updated (only for user relevant changes)
  • author name in AUTHORS

@Andrew-Chen-Wang Andrew-Chen-Wang changed the title Add migration due to noop Add migration due to noop FK from 4.0 Dec 23, 2021
@Andrew-Chen-Wang Andrew-Chen-Wang changed the title Add migration due to noop FK from 4.0 Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0 Dec 23, 2021
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 23, 2021

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.67%. Comparing base (27821a8) to head (8141aaf).
Report is 214 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1056   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.67%   96.67%           
=======================================
  Files          31       31           
  Lines        1777     1777           
=======================================
  Hits         1718     1718           
  Misses         59       59           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@n2ygk n2ygk changed the title Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0 WIP: Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0 Dec 23, 2021
@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor

n2ygk commented Dec 23, 2021

I'm marking this as a draft until I get a chance to dig in deeper to better understand the impact.

Unfortunately swappable models and migrations in DOT have always been a problem, with lots of manual tweaking of auto migrations required in the past. I've never completely understood the reasoning....

@n2ygk n2ygk added this to the 1.7.0 milestone Dec 23, 2021
@n2ygk n2ygk marked this pull request as draft January 4, 2022 20:41
@n2ygk n2ygk force-pushed the Andrew-Chen-Wang-patch-1 branch from aa77b7a to 7fde8d1 Compare January 4, 2022 20:42
@n2ygk n2ygk mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2022
2 tasks
@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor

n2ygk commented Jan 4, 2022

@Andrew-Chen-Wang I'm reading the PR commit django/django@4328970 and don't see where it says the new migration should be created....

@Andrew-Chen-Wang
Copy link
Contributor Author

django/django#15205 (comment) and its reply

@n2ygk
Copy link
Contributor

n2ygk commented Jan 4, 2022

django/django#15205 (comment) and its reply

Ah so it's in 4.0 release notes. The 4.0.1 thing talked about a different fix that you reported the bug for. Got it. So we'll have this noop migration....

@n2ygk n2ygk changed the title WIP: Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0 Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0 Jan 4, 2022
@n2ygk n2ygk marked this pull request as ready for review January 4, 2022 21:23
@n2ygk n2ygk merged commit 366e531 into master Jan 4, 2022
@n2ygk n2ygk deleted the Andrew-Chen-Wang-patch-1 branch January 4, 2022 21:24
n2ygk pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 6, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants