Allowing for UUID ids #93
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Concerned about the bad form of reading `_state` from outside the object
Least sure about this change - not sure why this became needed, which worries me. Without it, depth was None causing a failed DB NOT NULL constraint failure
|
While the tests pass, my changes have broken something when actually using the branch. I will update this PR when I figure it out. |
|
Ok, I've worked past that issue. So far models (MP_Node) seem to be working just fine in the admin interface. Add/Delete/Edit/Move. |
jrief
reviewed
Feb 16, 2018
… into allowing-for-uuid-ids
auvipy
approved these changes
Dec 5, 2019
|
Is there anything stopping this from being merged? This would be very useful to have as a feature. |
Merged
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I ran into some issues using
MP_Nodeand overriding the model'sidfield.I was able to add a new class to the tests and followed the bouncing ball to update the code. Thanks for having awesome tests! Made the updates so much easier.
My main concerns with this update are the setting of a
default=1for the depth field, and the usage of._state.addingfrom outside the model object.I hope this isn't too far off base, and looking forward to any feedback.