#django

hello, I am using a package which is meant for Django 1.7, however, we use Django 1.6. Hence, I cannot find a way to do migrations. Is there maybe some way the migrations could be run anyway (I know for some packages back portability exists)

There's no graceful conversion from native migrations to South, no.

lenochka: you can try removing migrations from it, it'll be syncdb'ed

Incidentally, both 1.6 and 1.7 are no longer supported.

Koterpillar: hm, how do you mean? all the existing migrations that I have in 1.6?

lenochka: remove only the migrations *that package* has

mattmcc: ok... :/ we really need to upgrade then

however, you will have a mess

Koterpillar: ah

upgrade

Koterpillar: maybe I will upgrade instead.. not sure how much work it requires though

you can try finding an older version of the package

but really, upgrade, old django does not receive security updates

what package?

The release notes are pretty thorough when it comes to backwards-incompatible changes.

Koterpillar: I had it. But I need the newest.. it's pinax-stripe

will just upgrade.

good

Well, it shouldn't come as a surprise that current versions of Django apps don't work with ancient versions of Django.

mattmcc: yes, I know

Asked this earlier but got disconnected (weak wifi…). I'm trying to invalidate template fragment caching with the low level API, on a model's post-save signal. the problem I'm having is that my template fragment cache has a number of vary_on's (filters, pagination). how do i invalidate these properly? https://dpaste.de/63aa#L10

Depending on your backend, you may be able to delete keys using a wildcard.

Wildcard how so?

It depends on the backend. Although neither memcached nor redis support it with a built-in operation, it requires some extra steps.

hey

mattmcc I'm using memcached. At the moment I'm considering keeping a separate "version" cache key for the specific template and including it in the template fragment cache vary_on, which I can just simply increment the "version" to invalidate the previous cached data. What do you think?

502 - Bad Gateway

I have setup something wrong hehe

djsnoops: That could work, but I've gotta wonder how practical it is to be storing all these various permutations of your template.

Especially since you're only caching for a minute.

mattmcc: It's only at a minute for development testing purposes ;) The various permutations are from the different filters and sorting orders

Right, but are you sure it's a win?

For example, it wouldn't take many possible choices for the filters before you've got tens of thousands of cache entries, many of which may not be hit more than a couple times before they expire.

Usually caching is the last optimization step.

Hm, I'll give it some more thought.