deferred-fields-patch

[JordanHyatt]

Provided a patch that allows objects to be deleted when they have deferred fields present

Description

Added a pre_delete signal that checks to see if there are any deferred fields on the instance that are present in the included_fileds

Related Issue

This is related to issue #678

Motivation and Context

This allows users of simple_history to delete objects without having to consider the consequences of deferring fields in their query

How Has This Been Tested?

Added a test that confirms objects with deferred fields can in-fact be deleted now

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)

Checklist:

• I have run the pre-commit run command to format and lint.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• I have added my name and/or github handle to AUTHORS.rst
• I have added my change to CHANGES.rst
• All new and existing tests passed.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1064 (362e9e9) into master (27b3dbf) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 362e9e9 differs from pull request most recent head 53bf721. Consider uploading reports for the commit 53bf721 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1064   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.24%   97.25%           
=======================================
  Files          23       23           
  Lines        1234     1238    +4     
  Branches      200      201    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits         1200     1204    +4     
  Misses         16       16           
  Partials       18       18           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
simple_history/models.py	96.76% <100.00%> (+0.04%)	⬆️

... and 10 files with indirect coverage changes

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[JordanHyatt]

Anything I can do to help get this PR accepted?

[jwaschkau]

Maybe it would be better to load all deferred fields in a single query, as Django loads fields one at a time on access (See https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/5.1/ref/models/querysets/#defer)

Updated code may look something like this:

instance.refresh_from_db(fields=field_attrs.intersection(deferred_attrs))

[JordanHyatt]

Yes, good idea, I have implemented this. Hopefully this gets reviewed and accepted soon!

[jwaschkau]

Hi @JordanHyatt,
the force push reverted your changes. I assume that was a mistake?

[jwaschkau]

New pull request #1393

[JordanHyatt]

Yeah I originally did it on my forks master branch, but I wanted to work on HistoricOneToOneField so I had to open a new PR which it looks like you found, thanks!