#35318 closed Cleanup/optimization (invalid)
QuerySet.exclude() docs contain a potentially misleading statement regarding the restrictiveness of examples.
Reported by: | P1car00n | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Documentation | Version: | 5.0 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | QuerySet, Clarification, Accuracy |
Cc: | P1car00n | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | yes | UI/UX: | no |
Description
In the Django documentation for the exclude() method, there's a statement comparing two examples where one is claimed to be more restrictive than the other. However, upon careful examination, it appears that the statement is inaccurate.
The documentation states:
"The second example is more restrictive."
However, this statement contradicts the actual behavior of the examples provided:
First Example:
Entry.objects.exclude(pub_date__gt=datetime.date(2005, 1, 3), headline="Hello")
This example excludes entries where both conditions (pub_date being later than January 3, 2005, and headline being "Hello") are true. It is more restrictive than the second example because it requires both conditions to be false for an entry to be excluded.
Second Example:
Entry.objects.exclude(pub_date__gt=datetime.date(2005, 1, 3)).exclude(headline="Hello")
This example excludes entries where either condition (pub_date being later than January 3, 2005, or headline being "Hello") is true. It is less restrictive than the first example because it allows for excluding entries based on either condition being true.
The issue is very easy to fix, but I wanted somebody with more experience with SQL to have a look first.
Change History (2)
comment:1 by , 8 months ago
Resolution: | → invalid |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
Summary: | The documentation for Django's exclude() method contains a potentially misleading statement regarding the restrictiveness of two examples provided. → QuerySet.exclude() docs contain a potentially misleading statement regarding the restrictiveness of examples. |
comment:2 by , 8 months ago
Thanks for considering my report. I just wanted to suggest a possible clarification regarding the wording then. Instead of "more restrictive," perhaps we could use "more exclusionary" to describe the second example? This could help avoid confusion about the intention behind the term. What do you think?
P.S.
While it's true that the second example excludes more rows, I feel that the term "restrictive" in the context of querying refers to how narrowly or precisely the conditions filter the results, not necessarily the quantity of rows excluded.
Thanks for this report, however I don't see anything wrong or misleading in the current wording. The second example is called "more restrictive" because more rows will be excluded.