#29381 new New feature (needsinfo)
Move some parts of `django.contrib.auth.models` to `django.contrib.auth.base_user` for reusability — at Version 1
| Reported by: | Sagar Chalise | Owned by: | nobody |
|---|---|---|---|
| Component: | contrib.auth | Version: | dev |
| Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Carlton Gibson, Ülgen Sarıkavak | Triage Stage: | Accepted |
| Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | yes |
| Needs tests: | yes | Patch needs improvement: | yes |
| Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
| Pull Requests: | |||
Description (last modified by ) ¶
This is more of an idea than bug but most of the time when need to use authentication without using contrib.auth one needs to rewrite some of the parts that can be reused if it were in base_user when the interface is similar to django.contrib.auth.
I am mostly talking about update_last_login function and AnonymousUser when custom user is derived from AbstractBaseUser.
May be create AnonymousBaseUser with parts that are compatible to AbstractBaseUser in base_user.py and use that as base class for AnonymousUser. Also, update_last_login function can be moved to base_user.py so that it can be reused.
According to the ticket's flags, the next step(s) to move this issue forward are:
- To add tests to the patch, then uncheck the "Needs tests" flag on the ticket.
- To write documentation for the patch, then uncheck "Needs documentation" on the ticket.
- To improve the patch as described in the pull request review comments or on this ticket, then uncheck "Patch needs improvement".
If creating a new pull request, include a link to the pull request in the ticket comment when making that update. The usual format is:
[https://github.com/django/django/pull/#### PR].
Change History (1)
comment:1 by , 7 years ago
| Cc: | added |
|---|---|
| Description: | modified (diff) |
| Resolution: | → needsinfo |
| Status: | new → closed |
Hi Sagar. Thanks for the input.
I'm going to close this as
needsinfoas is. The general idea is Yeah, possibly but it's too vague to be actionable in its current form.If you want to push this forwards then I would recommend an exploratory PR: make some (small) changes; what tests break?; what does it allow you to do?; etc. From there we've got something concrete to assess. Does that make sense?
Please feel free to re-open this issue if you come up with something concrete along these lines!