Skip to content
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

Reflect the deprecation of get_response being None. #1086

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 3, 2022

Conversation

PIG208
Copy link
Contributor

@PIG208 PIG208 commented Aug 4, 2022

I have made things!

In Django 4.0, get_response can no longer be None (4.0 release notes).
This affects MiddlewareMixin and its subclasses.

Related issues

@PIG208 PIG208 force-pushed the get-response-deprecation branch 3 times, most recently from cb84f12 to 737f071 Compare August 5, 2022 20:59
PIG208 added a commit to PIG208/django-stubs that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
This fixes the CI starting occur on typeddjango#1086 and following PRs due to the release
of Django 4.1 (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/releases/4.1/) which
shipped the change

    # Even if this relation is not to pk, we require still pk value.
    # The wish is that the instance has been already saved to DB,
    # although having a pk value isn't a guarantee of that.
    if self.instance.pk is None:
        raise ValueError(
            f"{instance.__class__.__name__!r} instance needs to have a primary "
            f"key value before this relationship can be used."
        )

in django/django#15318.
PIG208 added a commit to PIG208/django-stubs that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
This fixes the CI starting occur on typeddjango#1086 and following PRs due to the release
of Django 4.1 (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/releases/4.1/) which
shipped the change

    # Even if this relation is not to pk, we require still pk value.
    # The wish is that the instance has been already saved to DB,
    # although having a pk value isn't a guarantee of that.
    if self.instance.pk is None:
        raise ValueError(
            f"{instance.__class__.__name__!r} instance needs to have a primary "
            f"key value before this relationship can be used."
        )

in django/django#15318.
PIG208 added a commit to PIG208/django-stubs that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
This fixes the CI starting occur on typeddjango#1086 and following PRs due to the release
of Django 4.1 (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/releases/4.1/) which
shipped the change

    # Even if this relation is not to pk, we require still pk value.
    # The wish is that the instance has been already saved to DB,
    # although having a pk value isn't a guarantee of that.
    if self.instance.pk is None:
        raise ValueError(
            f"{instance.__class__.__name__!r} instance needs to have a primary "
            f"key value before this relationship can be used."
        )

in django/django#15318.
sobolevn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 8, 2022
This fixes the CI starting occur on #1086 and following PRs due to the release
of Django 4.1 (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/4.1/releases/4.1/) which
shipped the change

    # Even if this relation is not to pk, we require still pk value.
    # The wish is that the instance has been already saved to DB,
    # although having a pk value isn't a guarantee of that.
    if self.instance.pk is None:
        raise ValueError(
            f"{instance.__class__.__name__!r} instance needs to have a primary "
            f"key value before this relationship can be used."
        )

in django/django#15318.
@PIG208 PIG208 closed this Aug 8, 2022
@PIG208 PIG208 reopened this Aug 8, 2022
Otherwise, calling `self.get_response(request)` in a subclass of
`MiddlewareMixin` runs into `Invalid self argument` error.

This is a workaround for python/mypy#5485.

Signed-off-by: Zixuan James Li <[email protected]>
@sobolevn sobolevn merged commit c0414c7 into typeddjango:master Sep 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants