Fixed #9411 -- Changed the test from r9081 to be more robust across different database backends.
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9254 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
This commit is contained in:
parent
9319dc496c
commit
3b5d975ff6
|
@ -974,11 +974,12 @@ about them and shouldn't do bad things.
|
||||||
>>> expected == result
|
>>> expected == result
|
||||||
True
|
True
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Make sure bump_prefix() (an internal Query method) doesn't (re-)break.
|
Make sure bump_prefix() (an internal Query method) doesn't (re-)break. It's
|
||||||
>>> query = Tag.objects.values_list('id').order_by().query
|
sufficient that this query runs without error.
|
||||||
>>> query.bump_prefix()
|
>>> qs = Tag.objects.values_list('id', flat=True).order_by('id')
|
||||||
>>> print query.as_sql()[0]
|
>>> qs.query.bump_prefix()
|
||||||
SELECT U0."id" FROM "queries_tag" U0
|
>>> list(qs)
|
||||||
|
[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
Calling order_by() with no parameters removes any existing ordering on the
|
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.
|
model. But it should still be possible to add new ordering after that.
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue