Fix to handle proxy model and multiple M2M situations #270
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Added some tests |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I ran into some issues dealing with M2M relationships resulting in "null" being recorded as the fieldname for adds/removes on changes to proxy models which led me to #207
This PR re-writes
get_m2m_field_nameto use thesenderthat gets passed to the signal handler, which happens to be the through model.Given the through model, the changed instance, and the added model; we can uniquely determine which field on the instance model was changed, even if the originating model has multiple M2M relationships with the remote model (since each will use a different intermediate model).
There was also an issue that I didn't see in the issue tracker that came up for me; if the changed instance was a proxy model then get_m2m_field_name would return
None. This also resolves that issue since we are searching for the field directly