From 39516803f1e504db5d8a731e8fd3367bb9c016cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Russell Keith-Magee Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 12:23:48 +0000 Subject: Fixed #10064 -- Corrected handling of aggregate queries that also use select_related(). Thanks to olivius for the report. git-svn-id: http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk@9781 bcc190cf-cafb-0310-a4f2-bffc1f526a37 --- tests/regressiontests/aggregation_regress/models.py | 3 +++ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) (limited to 'tests') diff --git a/tests/regressiontests/aggregation_regress/models.py b/tests/regressiontests/aggregation_regress/models.py index cb442148bd..ca2447f505 100644 --- a/tests/regressiontests/aggregation_regress/models.py +++ b/tests/regressiontests/aggregation_regress/models.py @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ FieldError: Cannot resolve keyword 'foo' into field. Choices are: authors, id, i >>> Book.objects.aggregate(number=Max('pages'), select=Max('pages')) {'number': 1132, 'select': 1132} +# Regression for #10064: select_related() plays nice with aggregates +>>> Book.objects.select_related('publisher').annotate(num_authors=Count('authors')).values()[0] +{'rating': 4.0, 'isbn': u'013790395', 'name': u'Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach', 'pubdate': datetime.date(1995, 1, 15), 'price': Decimal("82.8..."), 'id': 5, 'num_authors': 2, 'publisher_id': 3, 'pages': 1132} """ } -- cgit v1.3