Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of Ticket #23048, comment 4


Ignore:
Timestamp:
Jul 3, 2019, 10:38:12 AM (5 years ago)
Author:
Rico Rodriguez

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified

  • Ticket #23048, comment 4

    v1 v2  
    11Why was this closed as wontfix?
    22
    3 The provided solutions from the last couple of comments don't address the fact that developers often take over projects that don't belong to them initially; I can't go back in time and ask the developer to put defaults on a NOT NULL field. Furthermore, solutions like inserting AlterField in the migration itself clearly don't help when the migration breaks precisely at RemoveField.
     3The provided solutions from the last couple of comments don't address the fact that developers often take over projects that don't belong to them initially; I can't go back in time and ask the developer to put defaults on a NOT NULL field. Furthermore, solutions like inserting AlterField in the migration itself clearly don't help when the migration breaks precisely at the (preceding) RemoveField step.
    44
    55There is a completely reasonable fix to this and it's to add something like a "reverse override" object in the migrations.RemoveField constructor that allows you to change the field-adding behavior of the reversed query. Something like
Back to Top