Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #35442, comment 6


Ignore:
Timestamp:
May 10, 2024, 3:19:48 PM (4 months ago)
Author:
Simon Charette

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #35442, comment 6

    initial v1  
    1 Accessing objects though a related manager should still allow for `only` to work as expected. The fact that the ORM doesn't even warn you when it silently issues queries on field deferral leaks (#22492) makes this behavior really insidious and prevents sage usage of related managers as Guillaume brought up.
     1Accessing objects though a related manager should still allow for `only` to work as expected. The fact that the ORM doesn't even warn you when it silently issues queries on field deferral leaks (#22492) makes this behavior really insidious and prevents safe usage of related managers as Guillaume brought up.
    22
    33I think the the ORM should either have `RelatedManager.only` include the reverse field implicitly (which we've kind of rules out against in #33835) or we should find a way to more safely assign known related objects in the face of deferred fields.
Back to Top