Casting a SimpleLazyObject to an int fails

[Matt Robenolt]

Should be pretty self explanatory. We noticed the bug when passing request.user into a filter like:

Model.objects.filter(user=request.user)

Since Django is attempting to coerce the object to an int, it fails on the SimpleLazyObject yielding:

TypeError: int() argument must be a string or a number, not 'SimpleLazyObject'

The error can be reproduced simple by doing:

class Foo(object):
  __int__ = lambda self: 1

int(SimpleLazyObject(Foo)))

See ​https://github.com/django/django/pull/706 for a patch.

[Jacob]

Closing after IRC discussion:

jacobkm: mattrobenolt: I'm a bit confused: why are you passing a user into something that expects an int?
jacobkm: I don't think it really has anything to do with the lazy object; if you did that with a non-lazy object you'd just get something like " int() argument must be a string or a number, not 'User'"
mattrobenolt: jacobkm: So we've been staring at this.
mattrobenolt: There's a bug in our code which causes us to pass in an AnonymousUser to our filter.
mattrobenolt: Which uncovered the SimpleLazyObject bug.
mattrobenolt: Inside Django's RelatedField._pk_trace, it's looking for a model's pk to get around the coersion.
mattrobenolt: If it's an Anonymous user, there is none of that, so it fails ugly.
mattrobenolt: So I guess we've uncovered a couple issues. 1) A bug in our code.
mattrobenolt: 2) A bug in coercing any SimpleLazyObject to an int with __int__.
mattrobenolt: 3) Should passing an AnonymousUser to a filter yield a better error?
jacobkm: I'd say no to 3 since that would basically require special-casing AnonymousUser somewhere nasty.
mattrobenolt: I agree on that.
jacobkm: I'm trying to think through why you'd need __int__ on the lazy object. It's not really a public API, it's just used within Django in a few places, and we never need it in an int context.
jacobkm: So I'm inclined to say "no"
mattrobenolt: Yeah, after uncovering our bug, it wouldn't have solved it since it's still a bug on our end.
mattrobenolt: Err, that didn't make much sense, but yeah.
mattrobenolt: I'm trying to think of a better way to solve this. At least in terms of a better error message.
mattrobenolt: Because this was terrible to track down considering we pinned it on that. :)
fhahn left the chat room. (Ping timeout: 248 seconds)
jacobkm: Yeah I think I'm gonna close this; if you come up with a way to make better error messages I'm all about that.