Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #35442, comment 6
- Timestamp:
- May 10, 2024, 3:19:48 PM (6 months ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #35442, comment 6
initial v1 1 Accessing objects though a related manager should still allow for `only` to work as expected. The fact that the ORM doesn't even warn you when it silently issues queries on field deferral leaks (#22492) makes this behavior really insidious and prevents sa ge usage of related managers as Guillaume brought up.1 Accessing objects though a related manager should still allow for `only` to work as expected. The fact that the ORM doesn't even warn you when it silently issues queries on field deferral leaks (#22492) makes this behavior really insidious and prevents safe usage of related managers as Guillaume brought up. 2 2 3 3 I think the the ORM should either have `RelatedManager.only` include the reverse field implicitly (which we've kind of rules out against in #33835) or we should find a way to more safely assign known related objects in the face of deferred fields.