#32382 closed Cleanup/optimization (wontfix)
Django 3.2 app config search prevents single-file apps
Reported by: | Adam Johnson | Owned by: | nobody |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Core (Other) | Version: | 3.2 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Aymeric Augustin | Triage Stage: | Unreviewed |
Has patch: | no | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
My third party package django-read-only is implemented as a single file (pre-3.1-support source). With Django <3.2's default_app_config
, it could point to its app config within the same module by defining default_app_config
.
Now the AppConfig logic *requires* an apps
submodule, which means apps cannot be single-file modules but have to be packages.
To work around this in django-read-only I made it into package, left all the logic in its __init__.py
, and added a "dummy" apps.py
that has only the line from django_read_only import DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig
(moving the app config would complicate its implementation). (commit )
Could we make the apps logic not search for an 'apps' submodule in the case of non-package modules, and instead check in the base module?
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 4 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
comment:2 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → needsinfo |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:4 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | needsinfo → wontfix |
---|
django_read_only==1.2.0
works fine as a single file (withoutdefault_app_config
) when you will usedjango_read_only.DjangoReadOnlyAppConfig
in theINSTALLED_APPS
, instead ofdjango_read_only
. It's niche, so I'm not sure if supporting default app configs in the base module is worth additional complexity and side-effects (such as e.g. clashes), but we could evaluate a patch.