#25144 closed New feature (fixed)
No way to create tables for apps without migrations
Reported by: | Markus Holtermann | Owned by: | Tim Graham |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Core (Management commands) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | 1.9 |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
The migrate
management command uses a undocumented flag run_syncdb
which is used within our own test suite as well as when creating the test databases. However, there is now way to pass this flag to the command and thus no database tables for apps without migrations are created.
I mark this as a release blocker as it is currently impossible to create the database tables, even though the 1.7 release notes stated we are going to drop that support with 1.9.
Change History (14)
comment:1 by , 9 years ago
comment:2 by , 9 years ago
I think it is more related to the outcome of #24481 and how we proceed with the removal of syncdb. I'm not convinced anymore that enforcing migrations for every app is the right choice. I try to write down my thoughts during PyConAU on django-developers.
comment:3 by , 9 years ago
Claude has proposed the idea on the mailing list. I don't think there are any objections to the idea, and I think we mostly just need a viable patch.
comment:4 by , 9 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
I'm going to take a stab at this, if I don't make some good progress in the next couple of days, I'll release the ticket.
comment:5 by , 9 years ago
Hi Julian, I'd suggest to sketch out your ideas and say how it will relate to #24481 before diving too deep into an implementation.
comment:6 by , 9 years ago
Owner: | removed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → new |
comment:7 by , 9 years ago
Tim, good idea. I'll pitch my ideas and get feedback before jumping into this one. Un-assigning for now in case someone more qualified comes by and wants to take a crack at it.
comment:8 by , 9 years ago
Keywords: | 1.9 added |
---|---|
Severity: | Release blocker → Normal |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | Bug → New feature |
comment:9 by , 9 years ago
Has patch: | set |
---|---|
Owner: | set to |
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:10 by , 9 years ago
Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
---|
Can we consider it a duplicate of #24919? Why is it a blocker despite the deprecation?