Slightly alter history to avoid having a Django 5 related migration #16214
+7
−35
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
AlanCoding
commented
Jan 8, 2026
| model_name='instance', | ||
| name='peers', | ||
| field=models.ManyToManyField(through='main.InstanceLink', to='main.Instance'), | ||
| field=models.ManyToManyField(through='main.InstanceLink', through_fields=('source', 'target'), to='main.Instance'), |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Both 0156 and 0187 account for the accounting different - 3 fields changed previously versus 5 fields changed here. This is because both of these are prior versions of the Instance.peers relationship. The changes to these could be reverted. But I don't think it would matter either way. I might revert because that would be more clear to me.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
SUMMARY
I am highly confident that the
ManyToManyFieldchange, in specific, did not correspond to an actual schema change and in those cases it is okay to bump the change back to the last migration number that changed the field. Doesn't mean this did it correctly, still needs to be debugged and tested.ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME