#451 closed defect (invalid)
There should be OneToManyField support
| Reported by: | Owned by: | Adrian Holovaty | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | 1.1 |
| Severity: | normal | Keywords: | Field |
| Cc: | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed | |
| Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
| Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
| Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
We can use OneToOne, ManyToOne, ManyToMany, it will be nicer if we can use OneToMany.
Change History (5)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | new → closed |
OneToMany is redundant. See ForeignKey, as Stan Seibert said above.
comment:3 by , 19 years ago
| Resolution: | invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | closed → reopened |
I don't think ForeignKey is enough here. Here you are an example: I get two objects both have OneToMany relationship with another thrid object. How could i declare all these three classes?
comment:4 by , 19 years ago
| Resolution: | → invalid |
|---|---|
| Status: | reopened → closed |
You would just put in two ForeignKey relations into the third class that point back to the first two classes. But stuff like this should be discussed on the IRC channel or in the mailing list, not in the bugtracking system.
Note:
See TracTickets
for help on using tickets.
Isn't this implied by the use of ForeignKey() on the "many" side?