Add forward compatiblity for UserLanguageMiddleware #2035
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Proposed changes in this pull request
Why I made this change
Our custom
UserLanguageMiddlewarewill become incopatible with upcoming Django releases.Description of the change
Following the Django docs on the topic, I added the
django.utils.deprecation.MiddlewareMixinso the middleware can be used with the oldMIDDLEWARE_CLASSESand theMIDDLEWAREsettings.Note You also need to deactivate
audit_log.middleware.UserLoggingMiddlewarebecause the latest version is not compatible with new-style middleware.How someone else can test the change
In the settings, you could change all occurances of
MIDDLEWARE_CLASSEStoMIDDLEWAREand run the tests. This should fail onmasterbut not on this branch.When should this PR be merged
When it's ready; not urgent.
Risks
None
Follow-up actions
None
Checklist (for reviewing)
General
Is this PR explained thoroughly? All code changes must be accounted for in the PR description.
Is the PR labeled correctly? It should have the
migrationlabel if a new migration is added.Is the risk level assessment sufficient? The risks section should contain all risks that might be introduced with the PR and which actions we need to take to mitigate these risks. Possible risks are database migrations, new libraries that need to be installed or changes to deployment scripts.
Functionality
Are all requirements met? Compare implemented functionality with the requirements specification.
Does the UI work as expected? There should be no Javascript errors in the console; all resources should load. There should be no unexpected errors. Deliberately try to break the feature to find out if there are corner cases that are not handled.
Code
Do you fully understand the introduced changes to the code? If not ask for clarification, it might uncover ways to solve a problem in a more elegant and efficient way.
Does the PR introduce any inefficient database requests? Use the debug server to check for duplicate requests.
Are all necessary strings marked for translation? All strings that are exposed to users via the UI must be marked for translation.
Is the code documented sufficiently? Large and complex classes, functions or methods must be annotated with comments following our code-style guidelines.
Has the scalability of this change been evaluated?
Is there a maintenance plan in place?
Tests
Are there sufficient test cases? Ensure that all components are tested individually; models, forms, and serializers should be tested in isolation even if a test for a view covers these components.
If this is a bug fix, are tests for the issue in place? There must be a test case for the bug to ensure the issue won’t regress. Make sure that the tests break without the new code to fix the issue.
If this is a new feature or a significant change to an existing feature? has the manual testing spreadsheet been updated with instructions for manual testing?
Security
Confirm this PR doesn't commit any keys, passwords, tokens, usernames, or other secrets.
Are all UI and API inputs run through forms or serializers?
Are all external inputs validated and sanitized appropriately?
Does all branching logic have a default case?
Does this solution handle outliers and edge cases gracefully?
Are all external communications secured and restricted to SSL?
Documentation
Are changes to the UI documented in the platform docs? If this PR introduces new platform site functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the Cadasta Platform Documentation.
Are changes to the API documented in the API docs? If this PR introduces new API functionality or changes existing ones, the changes must be documented in the API docs.
Are reusable components documented? If this PR introduces components that are relevant to other developers (for instance a mixin for a view or a generic form) they should be documented in the Wiki.