A regression caused by d5b93d3281 made .get() error
reporting recurse infinitely on certain rare conditions. Fixed this by
not trying to print the given lookup kwargs.
When a GenericRelation was defined on abstract model, queries on childs
of the abstract model didn't work. The problem was in the way fields and
in particular field.rel was copied from models to their children.
The regression was likely caused by #19385. Thanks to Gavin Wahl for
spotting the regression.
This reverts commit 2cd0edaa47.
This commit was the cause of a memory leak. See ticket for more details.
Thanks Anssi Kääriäinen for identifying the source of the bug.
Model.save() will use UPDATE - if not updated - INSERT instead of
SELECT - if found UPDATE else INSERT. This should save a query when
updating, but will cost a little when inserting model with PK set.
Also fixed#17341 -- made sure .save() commits transactions only after
the whole model has been saved. This wasn't the case in model
inheritance situations.
The save_base implementation was refactored into multiple methods.
A typical chain for inherited save is:
save_base()
_save_parents(self)
for each parent:
_save_parents(parent)
_save_table(parent)
_save_table(self)
The sql/query.py add_q method did a lot of where/having tree hacking to
get complex queries to work correctly. The logic was refactored so that
it should be simpler to understand. The new logic should also produce
leaner WHERE conditions.
The changes cascade somewhat, as some other parts of Django (like
add_filter() and WhereNode) expect boolean trees in certain format or
they fail to work. So to fix the add_q() one must fix utils/tree.py,
some things in add_filter(), WhereNode and so on.
This commit also fixed add_filter to see negate clauses up the path.
A query like .exclude(Q(reversefk__in=a_list)) didn't work similarly to
.filter(~Q(reversefk__in=a_list)). The reason for this is that only
the immediate parent negate clauses were seen by add_filter, and thus a
tree like AND: (NOT AND: (AND: condition)) will not be handled
correctly, as there is one intermediary AND node in the tree. The
example tree is generated by .exclude(~Q(reversefk__in=a_list)).
Still, aggregation lost connectors in OR cases, and F() objects and
aggregates in same filter clause caused GROUP BY problems on some
databases.
Fixed#17600, fixed#13198, fixed#17025, fixed#17000, fixed#11293.
Before there was need to have both .relabel_aliases() and .clone() for
many structs. Now there is only relabeled_clone() for those structs
where alias is the only mutable attribute.
Since "unless managed" now means "if database-level autocommit",
committing or rolling back doesn't have any effect.
Restored transactional integrity in a few places that relied on
automatically-started transactions with a transitory API.
enter_transaction_management() was nearly always followed by managed().
In three places it wasn't, but they will all be refactored eventually.
The "forced" keyword argument avoids introducing behavior changes until
then.
This is mostly backwards-compatible, except, of course, for managed
itself. There's a minor difference in _enter_transaction_management:
the top self.transaction_state now contains the new 'managed' state
rather than the previous one. Django doesn't access
self.transaction_state in _enter_transaction_management.
There were a couple of errors in ._dirty flag handling:
* It started as None, but was never reset to None.
* The _dirty flag was sometimes used to indicate if the connection
was inside transaction management, but this was not done
consistently. This also meant the flag had three separate values.
* The None value had a special meaning, causing for example inability
to commit() on new connection unless enter/leave tx management was
done.
* The _dirty was tracking "connection in transaction" state, but only
in managed transactions.
* Some tests never reset the transaction state of the used connection.
* And some additional less important changes.
This commit has some potential for regressions, but as the above list
shows, the current situation isn't perfect either.