Check out response below by Paul for some notes on compatibility with newer versions of Django/South. This seemed like an interesting problem, and I’m becoming a big fan of South, so I decided to look into this a bit. I built a test project on the abstract of what you’ve described above, and have successfully … Read more
I agree with Laksham that you should avoid this situation. But sometimes, we have to. I’ve faced this situation in the past and I’ve managed it this way. If you want to avoid losing data you can dump the old application data into a json file. python manage.py dumpdata old_app –natural –indent=4 1> old_app.json Note … Read more
That behavior is correct: null doesn’t mean anything at the database level when used with a ManyToManyField. The declaration of a ManyToManyField causes the creation of an intermediate table to hold the relationship, and although Django will create a standard attribute on your model instance for your convenience, there is no actual column representing it … Read more
South is more than able to do this migration for you, but you need to be smart and do it in stages. Here’s the step-by-step guide: (This guide presupposed you subclass AbstractUser, not AbstractBaseUser) Before making the switch, make sure that south support is enabled in the application that contains your custom user model (for … Read more
You can manually edit your migration and add AlterField with default value for a field just before RemoveField. It should be safe even after applying migration. That will make RemoveField that will happen after to be reversible. An example. Having field in model summary named profit that was defined before removal like that: profit = … Read more
I just started using South, and I’m 100% sold on it. It’s also one of the few that’s still under very active development. South should be able to properly handle the issues you’ve describe above. For each change to the db, it creates a file that has 2 methods “foward” and “backwards”. Here’s a sample … Read more
I think this has something to do with “The removal of ContentType.name“, according to this. But somehow it doesnt work. By manually removing the column name from ‘django_content_type’ table. Eg. ‘ALTER TABLE django_content_type DROP COLUMN name’ I was able to apply the migrations. Maybe this can get you a little bit further at least.
Yes, the South documentation describes how to do it, but basically just add this to your settings.py file: SOUTH_TESTS_MIGRATE = False # To disable migrations and use syncdb instead SKIP_SOUTH_TESTS = True # To disable South’s own unit tests
Changing the field name while keeping the DB field Adding an answer for Django 1.8+ (with Django-native migrations, rather than South). Make a migration that first adds a db_column property, and then renames the field. Django understands that the first is a no-op (because it changes the db_column to stay the same), and that the … Read more
So the step-by-step plan I outlined in my question does work, but instead of deleting rows from the south_migrationhistory database table, I had to delete rows from the django_migrations database table. The command is: DELETE FROM django_migrations WHERE app=’my_app’ Once this is done, you will be able to re-run your migrations from scratch.