[1.0.X] Fixed #9411 -- Changed the test from r9081 to be more robust across different database backends.
Backport of [9254] from trunk (I neglected to mention in the ticket this affected 1.0.X branch). Also updated svnmerge metadata; all eligible fixes have been backported and all others blocked. git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/branches/releases/1.0.X@9275 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
This commit is contained in:
parent
71ae6cbfa4
commit
d323ef20d3
|
@ -974,11 +974,12 @@ about them and shouldn't do bad things.
|
|||
>>> expected == result
|
||||
True
|
||||
|
||||
Make sure bump_prefix() (an internal Query method) doesn't (re-)break.
|
||||
>>> query = Tag.objects.values_list('id').order_by().query
|
||||
>>> query.bump_prefix()
|
||||
>>> print query.as_sql()[0]
|
||||
SELECT U0."id" FROM "queries_tag" U0
|
||||
Make sure bump_prefix() (an internal Query method) doesn't (re-)break. It's
|
||||
sufficient that this query runs without error.
|
||||
>>> qs = Tag.objects.values_list('id', flat=True).order_by('id')
|
||||
>>> qs.query.bump_prefix()
|
||||
>>> list(qs)
|
||||
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
|
||||
|
||||
Calling order_by() with no parameters removes any existing ordering on the
|
||||
model. But it should still be possible to add new ordering after that.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue