fabro/checkpoint.json

{
  "timestamp": "2026-03-16T05:34:29.016503Z",
  "current_node": "solve",
  "completed_nodes": [
    "start",
    "setup",
    "solve"
  ],
  "node_retries": {
    "start": 1,
    "solve": 1,
    "setup": 1
  },
  "context_values": {
    "last_response": "Implemented the fix in the Django checkout at:\n\n- `.task/django/django/core/checks/model_checks.py`\n- `.task/django/tests/check_framework/test_model_checks.py`\n\nWhat changed:\n- Kept `models.E028` for ",
    "response.solve": "Implemented the fix in the Django checkout at:\n\n- `.task/django/django/core/checks/model_checks.py`\n- `.task/django/tests/check_framework/test_model_checks.py`\n\nWhat changed:\n- Kept `models.E028` for duplicate `db_table` names by default.\n- If `settings.DATABASE_ROUTERS` is non-empty, the check now emits a warning instead:\n  - `models.W035`\n  - with a hint telling users to verify routing to separate databases.\n\nThis matches the issue’s requested behavior and keeps the change minimal.\n\nValidation:\n- Installed the checkout: `python -m pip install -e .`\n- Ran targeted tests successfully:\n  - `python tests/runtests.py check_framework.test_model_checks`\n\nResult:\n- 18 tests passed.",
    "last_stage": "solve",
    "internal.retry_count.start": 1,
    "thread.start.current_node": "setup",
    "internal.fidelity": "compact",
    "command.output": "fatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.\n",
    "current_node": "solve",
    "thread.setup.current_node": "solve",
    "failure_class": "",
    "current.preamble": "Goal: Django throws error when different apps with different models have the same name table name.\nDescription\n\t\nError message:\ntable_name: (models.E028) db_table 'table_name' is used by multiple models: base.ModelName, app2.ModelName.\nWe have a Base app that points to a central database and that has its own tables. We then have multiple Apps that talk to their own databases. Some share the same table names.\nWe have used this setup for a while, but after upgrading to Django 2.2 we're getting an error saying we're not allowed 2 apps, with 2 different models to have the same table names. \nIs this correct behavior? We've had to roll back to Django 2.0 for now.\n\n\n\n## Additional Context\n\nRegression in [5d25804eaf81795c7d457e5a2a9f0b9b0989136c], ticket #20098. My opinion is that as soon as the project has a non-empty DATABASE_ROUTERS setting, the error should be turned into a warning, as it becomes difficult to say for sure that it's an error. And then the project can add the warning in SILENCED_SYSTEM_CHECKS.\nI agree with your opinion. Assigning to myself, patch on its way Replying to Claude Paroz: Regression in [5d25804eaf81795c7d457e5a2a9f0b9b0989136c], ticket #20098. My opinion is that as soon as the project has a non-empty DATABASE_ROUTERS setting, the error should be turned into a warning, as it becomes difficult to say for sure that it's an error. And then the project can add the warning in SILENCED_SYSTEM_CHECKS.\n\n## Completed stages\n- **setup**: fail\n  - Script: `git clone https://github.com/django/django.git . && git checkout 65e86948b80262574058a94ccaae3a9b59c3faea && python -m pip install -e .`\n  - Stdout:\n    ```\n    fatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.\n    ```\n  - Stderr: (empty)\n\n## Context\n- failure_class: deterministic\n- failure_signature: setup|deterministic|script failed with exit code: <n> ## stdout fatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.\n",
    "internal.thread_id": "setup",
    "outcome": "success",
    "internal.retry_count.setup": 1,
    "internal.run_id": "01KKTJ3NYSF3ATKMXR1RPWGM9T",
    "command.stderr": "",
    "internal.retry_count.solve": 1,
    "graph.goal": "Django throws error when different apps with different models have the same name table name.\nDescription\n\t\nError message:\ntable_name: (models.E028) db_table 'table_name' is used by multiple models: base.ModelName, app2.ModelName.\nWe have a Base app that points to a central database and that has its own tables. We then have multiple Apps that talk to their own databases. Some share the same table names.\nWe have used this setup for a while, but after upgrading to Django 2.2 we're getting an error saying we're not allowed 2 apps, with 2 different models to have the same table names. \nIs this correct behavior? We've had to roll back to Django 2.0 for now.\n\n\n\n## Additional Context\n\nRegression in [5d25804eaf81795c7d457e5a2a9f0b9b0989136c], ticket #20098. My opinion is that as soon as the project has a non-empty DATABASE_ROUTERS setting, the error should be turned into a warning, as it becomes difficult to say for sure that it's an error. And then the project can add the warning in SILENCED_SYSTEM_CHECKS.\nI agree with your opinion. Assigning to myself, patch on its way Replying to Claude Paroz: Regression in [5d25804eaf81795c7d457e5a2a9f0b9b0989136c], ticket #20098. My opinion is that as soon as the project has a non-empty DATABASE_ROUTERS setting, the error should be turned into a warning, as it becomes difficult to say for sure that it's an error. And then the project can add the warning in SILENCED_SYSTEM_CHECKS.",
    "internal.node_visit_count": 1,
    "failure_signature": "",
    "graph.rankdir": "LR"
  },
  "logs": [],
  "node_outcomes": {
    "start": {
      "status": "success",
      "duration_ms": 0
    },
    "solve": {
      "status": "success",
      "context_updates": {
        "last_stage": "solve",
        "last_response": "Implemented the fix in the Django checkout at:\n\n- `.task/django/django/core/checks/model_checks.py`\n- `.task/django/tests/check_framework/test_model_checks.py`\n\nWhat changed:\n- Kept `models.E028` for ",
        "response.solve": "Implemented the fix in the Django checkout at:\n\n- `.task/django/django/core/checks/model_checks.py`\n- `.task/django/tests/check_framework/test_model_checks.py`\n\nWhat changed:\n- Kept `models.E028` for duplicate `db_table` names by default.\n- If `settings.DATABASE_ROUTERS` is non-empty, the check now emits a warning instead:\n  - `models.W035`\n  - with a hint telling users to verify routing to separate databases.\n\nThis matches the issue’s requested behavior and keeps the change minimal.\n\nValidation:\n- Installed the checkout: `python -m pip install -e .`\n- Ran targeted tests successfully:\n  - `python tests/runtests.py check_framework.test_model_checks`\n\nResult:\n- 18 tests passed."
      },
      "notes": "Stage completed: solve",
      "usage": {
        "model": "gpt-5.4",
        "input_tokens": 326269,
        "output_tokens": 4030,
        "cache_read_tokens": 304256,
        "reasoning_tokens": 1903,
        "cost": 0.8761225
      },
      "duration_ms": 99688
    },
    "setup": {
      "status": "fail",
      "context_updates": {
        "command.output": "fatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.\n",
        "command.stderr": ""
      },
      "failure": {
        "message": "Script failed with exit code: 128\n\n## stdout\nfatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.\n",
        "failure_class": "deterministic"
      },
      "duration_ms": 46
    }
  },
  "next_node_id": "extract_patch",
  "loop_failure_signatures": {
    "setup|deterministic|script failed with exit code: <n> ## stdout fatal: destination path '.' already exists and is not an empty directory.": 1
  },
  "node_visits": {
    "start": 1,
    "solve": 1,
    "setup": 1
  }
}