From 24dd5ea7e3c7532a8b5169962029fa0d5549d858 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Fabro Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 01:32:37 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] init run MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ⚒️ Generated with [Fabro](https://fabro.sh) --- graph.fabro | 49 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ manifest.json | 13 +++++++++++++ sandbox.json | 5 +++++ 3 files changed, 67 insertions(+) create mode 100644 graph.fabro create mode 100644 manifest.json create mode 100644 sandbox.json diff --git a/graph.fabro b/graph.fabro new file mode 100644 index 000000000..8bcffe71c --- /dev/null +++ b/graph.fabro @@ -0,0 +1,49 @@ +digraph SWEBench { + graph [goal="Abstract model field should not be equal across models +Description + +Consider the following models: +class A(models.Model): + class Meta: + abstract = True + myfield = IntegerField() +class B(A): + pass +class C(A): + pass +If I pull the fields of B and C into a shared set, one will be de-duplicated away, because they compare as equal. I found this surprising, though in practice using a list was sufficient for my need. The root of the issue is that they compare equal, as fields only consider self.creation_counter when comparing for equality. +len({B._meta.get_field('myfield'), C._meta.get_field('myfield')}) == 1 +B._meta.get_field('myfield') == C._meta.get_field('myfield') +We should adjust __eq__ so that if the field.model is different, they will compare unequal. Similarly, it is probably wise to adjust __hash__ and __lt__ to match. +When adjusting __lt__, it may be wise to order first by self.creation_counter so that cases not affected by this equality collision won't be re-ordered. In my experimental branch, there was one test that broke if I ordered them by model first. +I brought this up on IRC django-dev to check my intuitions, and those conversing with me there seemed to agree that the current behavior is not intuitive. +"] + rankdir=LR + + start [shape=Mdiamond] + exit [shape=Msquare] + + setup [label="Setup", shape=parallelogram, script="git clone https://github.com/django/django.git . && git checkout 453967477e3ddae704cd739eac2449c0e13d464c && python -m pip install -e ."] + solve [label="Solve", prompt="Fix this GitHub issue in the repository. Make the minimal code change needed.\n\nAbstract model field should not be equal across models +Description + +Consider the following models: +class A(models.Model): + class Meta: + abstract = True + myfield = IntegerField() +class B(A): + pass +class C(A): + pass +If I pull the fields of B and C into a shared set, one will be de-duplicated away, because they compare as equal. I found this surprising, though in practice using a list was sufficient for my need. The root of the issue is that they compare equal, as fields only consider self.creation_counter when comparing for equality. +len({B._meta.get_field('myfield'), C._meta.get_field('myfield')}) == 1 +B._meta.get_field('myfield') == C._meta.get_field('myfield') +We should adjust __eq__ so that if the field.model is different, they will compare unequal. Similarly, it is probably wise to adjust __hash__ and __lt__ to match. +When adjusting __lt__, it may be wise to order first by self.creation_counter so that cases not affected by this equality collision won't be re-ordered. In my experimental branch, there was one test that broke if I ordered them by model first. +I brought this up on IRC django-dev to check my intuitions, and those conversing with me there seemed to agree that the current behavior is not intuitive. +"] + extract_patch [label="Extract Patch", shape=parallelogram, script="git diff"] + + start -> setup -> solve -> extract_patch -> exit +} diff --git a/manifest.json b/manifest.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..71ab6e205 --- /dev/null +++ b/manifest.json @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +{ + "run_id": "01KKTJ3AJJBN9XG481JG4DYQBD", + "workflow_name": "SWEBench", + "goal": "Abstract model field should not be equal across models\nDescription\n\t\nConsider the following models:\nclass A(models.Model):\n\tclass Meta:\n\t\tabstract = True\n\tmyfield = IntegerField()\nclass B(A):\n\tpass\nclass C(A):\n\tpass\nIf I pull the fields of B and C into a shared set, one will be de-duplicated away, because they compare as equal. I found this surprising, though in practice using a list was sufficient for my need. The root of the issue is that they compare equal, as fields only consider self.creation_counter when comparing for equality.\nlen({B._meta.get_field('myfield'), C._meta.get_field('myfield')}) == 1\nB._meta.get_field('myfield') == C._meta.get_field('myfield')\nWe should adjust __eq__ so that if the field.model is different, they will compare unequal. Similarly, it is probably wise to adjust __hash__ and __lt__ to match.\nWhen adjusting __lt__, it may be wise to order first by self.creation_counter so that cases not affected by this equality collision won't be re-ordered. In my experimental branch, there was one test that broke if I ordered them by model first.\nI brought this up on IRC django-dev to check my intuitions, and those conversing with me there seemed to agree that the current behavior is not intuitive.\n", + "start_time": "2026-03-16T05:32:37.423371Z", + "node_count": 5, + "edge_count": 4, + "run_branch": "fabro/run/01KKTJ3AJJBN9XG481JG4DYQBD", + "base_sha": "470fcfe1200b2102c0cdf91c73b0ed8d925f258a", + "base_branch": "main", + "workflow_slug": "django__django-13401", + "host_repo_path": "/Users/bhelmkamp/p/fabro-sh/fabro/evals/swe-bench/results/opus-baseline/runs/django__django-13401" +} \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/sandbox.json b/sandbox.json new file mode 100644 index 000000000..36abbf4af --- /dev/null +++ b/sandbox.json @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@ +{ + "provider": "daytona", + "working_directory": "/home/daytona/workspace", + "identifier": "fabro-01KKTJ3AJJBN9XG481JG4DYQBD" +} \ No newline at end of file