Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
3.15 Release #9210
3.15 Release #9210
Changes from 60 commits
988bc3a965e9bc18f7567428b5845313ae67b57ec47f55921631b8c17848ffdff803c8f5b08ff3fc4baad7df7229324a23088f9128aaf97f42b78d03ef5fe25d0c3319765941aa27efb1a611307a374ea0e73dfb98a5b9a555b2ef5d1be7e398aa1e3e88e65ba2bb6ed428aedab7bb952b27c85bfbb04a402b0f440f2289f0b6150c8b935efecd1bf1b7e0bde32b879cc5b5721ae36c53017b721a2323a50ff175c4044d460b9ca68a0382cfd0edb381a5487914002bcda0ec60660d6670a443209325acda6e6dcaf6313af2dc1929e0003c53b5f6269baf94dbba90a204ef057549bdcb42d1ae4b74fe0a45dd0751fd06ede2407f79cc4a6File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The latest release now fully supports Django 4.2 and Python 3.12.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
python 3.12 still has failures
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, my intention was leave it ready for when it's done
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
now it supports py 3.12 and dj 5.0
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The current minimum versions of Django is 3.0 and Python 3.7.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That was, given that my 3.6 removal PR was taken into this release. But the PR now removes 3.6 and 3.7, and given DRF still officialy supports django 3.0. which supports python 3.6 and 3.7, we can't take it for the 3.15 release.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think Django 3.0 can be supported with Python 3.7 only, it doesn't seems a bad thing to me
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what's the point of doing that?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It would alleviate the CI while still accepting bugs from Django 3.0.
Dropping support for a version means "no bugs on that stack will be addressed nor the backward compatibility will be checked" to me.
In the case of a bug arising from Django 3 and Python 3.6, it should be encouraged to upgrade Python and see if it persists.
It would still be compatible with your PR as Django 3 supports Python 3.6-3.9 (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/5.0/releases/3.0/). With your PR, the minimum version of the stack checked (or fully supported) would be Django >= 3, Python >= 3.8
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Moving to Django 4.0+ and Python 3.8+ would prob be sensible.
3.2 LTS is almost at EOL... https://www.djangoproject.com/download/#supported-versions
We could then tie into their release cadence.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think keeping support of django 3.2 LTS would be a good idea now. we should keep two LTS working for easier upgrades from existing projects.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#8979 is marked as "breaking change" and the fix for that (#9244) is not merged yet. It should be noted in the release notes this is a breaking-change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@TGoddessana please see same implemented @, thank you,
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Although I'm not a maintainer, I'm very interested in the maintenance of the project, so I took a look at the issues.
one PR (Fix validation for ListSerializer #8979) that solves the original issue (Invalid
self.instancewhen validating the serializer usingmany=True#8926) seems to have been merged already, but the better implementation (Improve ListSerializer #9244) is still not fully resolved based on the last comment in the issue.so which decision do we make?
self.instancewhen validating the serializer usingmany=True#8926 if we need a better implementation? If a better design exists, would it be a good decision to include it in the 3.15 release?self.instancewhen validating the serializer usingmany=True#8926 and ship a bugfix release with 3.15.1 with a better implementation? It was clearly labeled as a breaking change, but it felt more like a bug fix to me.Would love to hear your thoughts @tomchristie 🥲
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
IMO the problem is that #8926 was addressed ignoring the advice regarding "Customizing multiple update"
Thus the proposed solution (#8979) only addesses a single use case while ignoring out many others which are now not supported by the framework. For example: using
ListSerializerto perform in a bulk request a "create-update-delete" of a list of objects which was possible before this change.PS: there is also an issue with the current implementation of
ListSerializerwhen validating instances and just use "index" to choose which instance will be associated to which data.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I was thinking about reverting that for this release
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
#9283 let me know your thoughts, and we can wait for a better fix in future
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If this change is not released in 3.15, which release do you think is the right one to fix and release it in: 3.16 or 3.15.1?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if it is just reverted it will not be included in 3.15, as it is a big thing, it should be included in a major release like 3.16/3.17
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I just want to avoid including any not fully functional feature for 3.15
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree with you. Thank you for your efforts!