Specifying encrypted_max_length instead of max_length in models #15
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
LOL, just noticed that #7 addresses this issue in a slightly more reasonable way. Feel free to close this pull in favor of that one. Whatever fixes this most appropriately! |
|
@mrname no problem. closing this pull request. |
|
Thanks @danaspiegel. In light of closing this, are there any plans for merging #7 any time soon? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This is intended to resolve #11 by asking the user to specify
encrypted_max_lengthin their models instead ofmax_length. The user has the option of still using the old method ofmax_lengthwith the side effect of migrations being produced every timemakemigrationsis run. This seemed reasonable to me since some users might not care (if they have a small app that only requires an initial migration).