django-auditlog issues, resolve upstream or fork?
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Python
- Stars
- 2
- Forks
- 0
- Avg merge
- 1d 2h
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 1
Description
- N1-problems on create - it uses post_save and creates a new object per save. (Solution: Create objects at the end of the transaction with bulk create)
- Doesn't read bulk-create, can that be solved?
- Stores a lot of unneeded data. (User email!?) And repr of obj!?
- The changes-field stores repr rather than object data. (There should be hooks to handle this instead.)
- Relation to user via actor will be blank if user is removed. (Solution: use int field with index, value with persist.)
- There's really no reason to save previous value, as long as the older records are intact.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by reviewing the django-auditlog integration around post_save, transaction handling, bulk_create, and actor or changes-field persistence. Compare each listed limitation with upstream support and decide whether to resolve it upstream or maintain a fork. Done means the decision is documented and the selected changes are split into scoped, testable tasks.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- django, python
- Domain
- backend, databases
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100