Possibly related to #5768 and #3358 (FIXME: select_related isn't supported in values() comment in source).
The last test should not throw an exception:
from django.db import models
class Shelf(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
def __unicode__(self):
return u"%s the shelf" % self.name
class BookManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
return super(BookManager, self).get_query_set().\
select_related('shelf').\
extra(select={'shelf_name': 'extra_save_shelf.name'})
class Book(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
shelf = models.ForeignKey(Shelf)
objects = BookManager()
def __unicode__(self):
return u"%s the book" % self.name
__test__ = {'API_TESTS':"""
>>> shelf = Shelf(name="Foo")
>>> shelf.save()
>>> book = Book(name="bar", shelf=shelf)
>>> book.save() # initial save works fine
>>> Book.objects.get(pk=1) # querying works as well
<Book: bar the book>
# subsequent saves fail due to missing select_related
>>> book.save()
Traceback (most recent call last):
...
OperationalError: no such column: extra_save_shelf.name
"""
}
The problem seems to be that the .extra().values() query that is used to determine whether to do an update or insert doesn't use select_related(), while the manager's extra clause() relies on the tables from select_related existing.
Is there a reason why save's extra() query would need to consider the manager's at all? Wouldn't overwriting existing extra()s be the right thing to do in any case?
