Bugfix: PROTECTED with related_name='+' #6698
Conversation
Manage this branch in SquashTest this branch here: https://m3brownbugfix-model-admin-prot-sj546.squash.io |
m3brown
force-pushed
the
bugfix-model-admin-protected
branch
from
7599cba
to
6fc6d13
Compare
m3brown
force-pushed
the
bugfix-model-admin-protected
branch
from
6fc6d13
to
16518d9
Compare
| if rel.on_delete == models.PROTECT: | ||
| if isinstance(rel, OneToOneRel): | ||
| try: | ||
| obj = getattr(self.instance, rel.get_accessor_name()) | ||
| if rel.get_accessor_name() != '+': |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Arguably, the performance of both if and else OneToOneField implementations are similar, they're both a "get" operation, so we could potentially drop the if and use the else implementation all the time...
In contrast, for the implementation for ManyToOneFields, I assume a releated_name lookup is more efficient than doing a filter of the related model? In other words, I imagine leaving the if and else implementations makes sense for ManyToOneField.
|
Hello, I'm closing this as it's quite dated and we no longer accepting PRs for new ModelAdmin features in Wagtail as per wagtail/rfcs#85. If you'd like, you could create a new PR to the wagtail-modeladmin repository. If the bug fix is critical, we might consider backporting it to the Wagtail repo during the deprecation period. Thank you! |
This PR is an attempt to resolve wagtail-nest/wagtail-modeladmin#30.
Changes in this PR:
related_name="+"fields_mapwould conflictBefore submitting, please review the contributor guidelines https://docs.wagtail.io/en/latest/contributing/index.html and check the following: