mirrors/django
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/django/django.git synced 2024-12-22 17:16:24 +00:00
Code Issues 25 Releases Wiki Activity

Added missing backticks in docs.

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Mariusz Felisiak 2023-07-21 12:54:38 +02:00 committed by GitHub
parent e4a5527d1d
commit 02376f1f53
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
3 changed files with 5 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
docs/ref/models/options.txt
View File

@ -445,7 +445,7 @@ not be looking at your Django code. For example::
unique_together = ["driver", "restaurant"] unique_together = ["driver", "restaurant"]
A :class:`~django.db.models.ManyToManyField` cannot be included in A :class:`~django.db.models.ManyToManyField` cannot be included in
unique_together. (It's not clear what that would even mean!) If you ``unique_together``. (It's not clear what that would even mean!) If you
need to validate uniqueness related to a need to validate uniqueness related to a
:class:`~django.db.models.ManyToManyField`, try using a signal or :class:`~django.db.models.ManyToManyField`, try using a signal or
an explicit :attr:`through <ManyToManyField.through>` model. an explicit :attr:`through <ManyToManyField.through>` model.

5
docs/releases/1.8.2.txt
View File

@ -48,8 +48,9 @@ Bugfixes
* Fixed ``isnull`` lookup for ``HStoreField`` (:ticket:`24751`). * Fixed ``isnull`` lookup for ``HStoreField`` (:ticket:`24751`).
* Fixed a MySQL crash when a migration removes a combined index (unique_together * Fixed a MySQL crash when a migration removes a combined index (
or index_together) containing a foreign key (:ticket:`24757`). ``unique_together`` or ``index_together``) containing a foreign key
(:ticket:`24757`).
* Fixed session cookie deletion when using :setting:`SESSION_COOKIE_DOMAIN` * Fixed session cookie deletion when using :setting:`SESSION_COOKIE_DOMAIN`
(:ticket:`24799`). (:ticket:`24799`).

2
docs/topics/db/transactions.txt
View File

@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ will fail with the error "current transaction is aborted, queries ignored
until end of transaction block". While the basic use of ``save()`` is unlikely until end of transaction block". While the basic use of ``save()`` is unlikely
to raise an exception in PostgreSQL, there are more advanced usage patterns to raise an exception in PostgreSQL, there are more advanced usage patterns
which might, such as saving objects with unique fields, saving using the which might, such as saving objects with unique fields, saving using the
force_insert/force_update flag, or invoking custom SQL. ``force_insert``/``force_update`` flag, or invoking custom SQL.
There are several ways to recover from this sort of error. There are several ways to recover from this sort of error.