allow to make comments for non-abstract models by COMMENTS_FOR_CONCRETE_MODEL setting #177
Conversation
|
Would you be able to write a test for that? |
|
@claudep OK, I will get to it. |
|
@claudep I just bumped into this and realized that I forgot to finish it. |
|
I would love to get a quick second review by someone else (maybe @felixxm ?). I think some documentation may still be needed. |
tests/testapp/models.py
Outdated
| author = models.ForeignKey(Author, on_delete=models.CASCADE) | ||
| headline = models.CharField(max_length=100) | ||
|
|
||
| def save(self, *args, **kwargs): | ||
| import pudb; pudb.set_trace() |
|
I fixed the useless code and added some basic documentation. |
| content_type=ContentType.objects.get_for_model( | ||
| self.target_object, | ||
| for_concrete_model=COMMENTS_FOR_CONCRETE_MODEL, | ||
| ), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm not sure if the new setting is the preferred way 🤔 What do you think about adding the for_concrete_model=True keyword argument to the get_comment_object() and get_comment_create_data()?
|
@felixxm I have rewritten the code to use the I will probably use the COMMENTS_FOR_CONCRETE_MODEL for Another way to support this would be to have some mapping in settings like |
|
@felixxm I taught about it more, and I came up with new approach to my problem: #188 That said, this PR is contains little change to the core code and can solve different use-cases where using proxy models is needed. |
|
I have implemented functionality that I need in #188, however this might be helpful in different use cases so I converted it to draft. |
|
It's looks good now. |
|
@blockchainGuru1018 Could you please rather review #188. I converted this to draft in case someone wants to take this work over and adapt it for his/hers purposes. Overridable model keys are solving my use-case much better. |
Reviewed your PR @PetrDlouhy |
No description provided.