Tuesday, September 6, 2022¶
#4642 is an example of something that would be difficult if Lino were maintained by a bigger team: modifying the name of a database model.
This would have caused endless discussions. It’s true that by “just doing it” I stumbled into a few surprises. But the advantage is that I didn’t even need to bother the other developers, they will just see the result and feel intuitively that things are more clear now. Unless I am wrong, which is still possible, but at least my change has done already a big series of conceptual tests when I handled all the surprises.
Another reason why such a change would be difficult: no customer would ever pay for fixing them.
One of the surprises was:
checkdata.Message.owner_type: (fields.E304) Reverse accessor 'ContentType.message_set' for 'checkdata.Message.owner_type' clashes with reverse accessor for 'notify.Message.owner_type'. HINT: Add or change a related_name argument to the definition for 'checkdata.Message.owner_type' or 'notify.Message.owner_type'. notify.Message.owner_type: (fields.E304) Reverse accessor 'ContentType.message_set' for 'notify.Message.owner_type' clashes with reverse accessor for 'checkdata.Message.owner_type'. HINT: Add or change a related_name argument to the definition for 'notify.Message.owner_type' or 'checkdata.Message.owner_type'.
I had to modify
lino.modlib.gfks.Controllable so that it includes the
appname into the related_name.