You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I understand that it may be a design choice to delegate makemigrations and migrate to the client. It makes sense when django is capable of handling those changes alone. Several other times, however, migrations have to be written manually in order to be backwards compatible and whatknot.
In that vein, our project ensures that those migrations are not missing in our CI process, blocking pull requests that make database without syncing the migrations.
Due to that, we had to disable those checks when incorporating django-cities-light. Thanks for the work btw, it is a lot better than the solution we used previously.
Therefore i suggest that it may be considered, for compatibility with good industry practices, to ship migrations in the relevant {app_name}/fixtures folders.
Since this is a design decision, i chose to open an issue for discussion rather than issuing a new pull request.
Thanks for your time, John.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello guys.
I understand that it may be a design choice to delegate
makemigrations
andmigrate
to the client. It makes sense when django is capable of handling those changes alone. Several other times, however, migrations have to be written manually in order to be backwards compatible and whatknot.In that vein, our project ensures that those migrations are not missing in our CI process, blocking pull requests that make database without syncing the migrations.
Due to that, we had to disable those checks when incorporating django-cities-light. Thanks for the work btw, it is a lot better than the solution we used previously.
Therefore i suggest that it may be considered, for compatibility with good industry practices, to ship migrations in the relevant
{app_name}/fixtures
folders.Since this is a design decision, i chose to open an issue for discussion rather than issuing a new pull request.
Thanks for your time, John.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: