mirrors/django
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/django/django.git synced 2025-07-05 18:29:11 +00:00
Code Issues 32 Releases Wiki Activity

queryset-refactor: Added a couple of tests to demonstrate table handling in order_by() situations. One is known to fail (and commented out for now).

Browse Source 
git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/branches/queryset-refactor@6968 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37
This commit is contained in:
Malcolm Tredinnick 2007-12-22 11:16:21 +00:00
parent e247b36447
commit b824d803ce
1 changed files with 16 additions and 0 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
tests/regressiontests/queries/models.py
View File

@ -269,6 +269,13 @@ Bug #2253
>>> (q1 & q2).order_by('name')
[<Item: one>]
# FIXME: This is difficult to fix and very much an edge case, so punt for now.
# # This is related to the order_by() tests, below, but the old bug exhibited
# # itself here (q2 was pulling too many tables into the combined query with the
# # new ordering, but only because we have evaluated q2 already).
# >>> len((q1 & q2).order_by('name').query.tables)
# 1
>>> q1 = Item.objects.filter(tags=t1)
>>> q2 = Item.objects.filter(note=n3, tags=t2)
>>> q3 = Item.objects.filter(creator=a4)
@ -377,6 +384,15 @@ Bug #2076
>>> Ranking.objects.all().order_by('rank')
[<Ranking: 1: a3>, <Ranking: 2: a2>, <Ranking: 3: a1>]
# If we replace the default ordering, Django adjusts the required tables
# automatically. Item normally requires a join with Note to do the default
# ordering, but that isn't needed here.
>>> qs = Item.objects.order_by('name')
>>> qs
[<Item: four>, <Item: one>, <Item: three>, <Item: two>]
>>> len(qs.query.tables)
1
# Ordering of extra() pieces is possible, too and you can mix extra fields and
# model fields in the ordering.
>>> Ranking.objects.extra(tables=['django_site'], order_by=['-django_site.id', 'rank'])