namnam-skills 1.0.3 → 1.0.4

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13321.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
+This repository doesn't seem to contain the Django source code. This is a different project. The issue is about Django's session handling. Let me understand the issue better and write a patch based on the traceback information provided.
+
+Looking at the issue, the problem is in `django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py`. The `_legacy_decode` method is called when the normal decode fails, but `_legacy_decode` itself can fail with `binascii.Error: Incorrect padding` when the session data is corrupted or invalid.
+
+The fix should catch this exception and return an empty dictionary (like other decode errors), rather than letting it propagate and crash the application.
+
+Based on the traceback:
+1. Line 118: `decode()` tries `signing.loads()` which fails with `BadSignature`
+2. Line 122: Falls back to `_legacy_decode()`
+3. Line 126 in `_legacy_decode`: `base64.b64decode()` fails with `binascii.Error: Incorrect padding`
+
+The fix should wrap the `_legacy_decode` method to handle `binascii.Error` exceptions and return an empty session dictionary.
+
+Let me look at the commit referenced in the hints: `d4fff711d4c97356bd6ba1273d2a5e349326eb5f` which caused the regression.
+
+Based on my understanding of the Django session code and the issue description, here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
++++ b/django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
+@@ -1,3 +1,4 @@
++import binascii
+ import logging
+ import string
+ from datetime import datetime, timedelta
+@@ -121,7 +122,7 @@ class SessionBase:
+             return signing.loads(session_data, salt=self.key_salt, serializer=self.serializer)
+         # RemovedInDjango40Warning: when the deprecation ends, handle here
+         # exceptions similar to what _legacy_decode() does now.
+-        except signing.BadSignature:
++        except (signing.BadSignature, binascii.Error):
+             try:
+                 return self._legacy_decode(session_data)
+             except Exception:

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13401.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's source code and the issue description, I can create the patch. The Field class is in `django/db/models/fields/__init__.py` and the comparison methods use `creation_counter`. The fix needs to incorporate `self.model` into the comparison.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/__init__.py
+@@ -516,17 +516,21 @@ class Field(RegisterLookupMixin):
+     def __eq__(self, other):
+         # Needed for @total_ordering
+         if isinstance(other, Field):
+-            return self.creation_counter == other.creation_counter
++            return (
++                self.creation_counter == other.creation_counter and
++                self.model == other.model
++            )
+         return NotImplemented
+ 
+     def __lt__(self, other):
+         # This is needed because bisect does not take a comparison function.
+         if isinstance(other, Field):
+-            return self.creation_counter < other.creation_counter
++            if self.creation_counter == other.creation_counter:
++                return (self.model._meta.app_label, self.model._meta.model_name) < (other.model._meta.app_label, other.model._meta.model_name)
++            return self.creation_counter < other.creation_counter
+         return NotImplemented
+ 
+     def __hash__(self):
+-        return hash(self.creation_counter)
++        return hash((self.creation_counter, self.model))
+ 
+     def __deepcopy__(self, memodict):
+         # We don't have to deepcopy very much here, since most things are not

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13447.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's admin codebase (specifically Django 3.x/4.x era when this issue was likely filed), I'll generate the patch. The `_build_app_dict` method in `django/contrib/admin/sites.py` builds a dictionary for apps and their models for the admin index and app_index views. The issue requests:
+
+1. Adding the `model` class to the model info dictionary in `app_list`
+2. Making `_build_app_dict` public by renaming it to `build_app_dict`
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/admin/sites.py
++++ b/django/contrib/admin/sites.py
+@@ -433,6 +433,7 @@ class AdminSite:
+                     'admin_url': admin_url,
+                     'add_url': add_url,
+                     'view_only': view_only,
++                    'model': model,
+                 })
+ 
+         if app_dict:
+@@ -486,7 +487,7 @@ class AdminSite:
+ 
+         return app_dict
+ 
+-    def _build_app_dict(self, request, label=None):
++    def build_app_dict(self, request, label=None):
+         """
+         Build the app dictionary. The optional `label` parameter filters models
+         of a specific app.
+@@ -514,13 +515,13 @@ class AdminSite:
+ 
+         return app_dict
+ 
+     def get_app_list(self, request, app_label=None):
+         """
+         Return a sorted list of all the installed apps that have been
+         registered in this site.
+         """
+-        app_dict = self._build_app_dict(request, app_label)
++        app_dict = self.build_app_dict(request, app_label)
+ 
+         # Sort the apps alphabetically.
+         app_list = sorted(app_dict.values(), key=lambda x: x['name'].lower())

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13448.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,203 @@
+Let me understand the issue from the problem statement and hints:
+
+1. **Issue**: When `TEST: {"MIGRATE": False}` is set, the test runner crashes because:
+   - It tries to serialize the database contents via `serialize_db_to_string()` 
+   - But since migrations weren't run, tables like `django_admin_log` don't exist
+   - This causes a `ProgrammingError: relation "django_admin_log" does not exist`
+
+2. **Root cause from hints**: When `MIGRATE` is `False`, Django should still synchronize all apps (create tables) using `run_syncdb=True`, but it currently only does this when `MIGRATE` is `True`.
+
+3. **Fix from hints**: Run `migrate --run-syncdb` with `MIGRATION_MODULES` set to `None` for all apps, which causes Django to create tables without running actual migrations.
+
+Let me create the patch based on the Django 3.1 code structure. Looking at the traceback:
+
+```python
+# In django/db/backends/base/creation.py, line 78
+self.connection._test_serialized_contents = self.serialize_db_to_string()
+```
+
+The issue is in `create_test_db()` method. When `MIGRATE` is `False`, Django still tries to serialize the database, but the tables don't exist because migrations weren't run. The fix needs to:
+1. When `MIGRATE` is `False`, still run `syncdb` to create tables (just without actual migrations)
+2. This is done by setting `MIGRATION_MODULES` to `{app.label: None}` for all apps and running `migrate --run-syncdb`
+
+Based on the traceback and hints, here's the patch for `django/db/backends/base/creation.py`:
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
+@@ -58,6 +58,7 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+         test_database_name = self._get_test_db_name()
+ 
+         if verbosity >= 1:
++            from django.apps import apps
+             action = 'Creating'
+             if keepdb:
+                 action = "Using existing"
+@@ -71,14 +72,28 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+         # We then serialize the current state of the database into a string
+         # and store it on the connection. This slightly horrific process is so
+         # people who are testing on databases without transactions or instantiate
+-        # a test database from a .sql script can still use TransactionTestCase.
++        # a test database from a .sql script can still use
++        # TransactionTestCase.
+         if serialize:
+-            self.connection._test_serialized_contents = self.serialize_db_to_string()
++            self.connection._test_serialized_contents = (
++                self.serialize_db_to_string()
++            )
+ 
+         call_command('createcachetable', database=self.connection.alias)
+ 
+         return test_database_name
+ 
++    def _syncdb(self, verbosity, interactive):
++        """Sync database tables without migrations."""
++        from django.apps import apps
++        from django.conf import settings
++        from django.core.management import call_command
++        migration_modules = settings.MIGRATION_MODULES
++        settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = {app.label: None for app in apps.get_app_configs()}
++        try:
++            call_command(
++                'migrate',
++                verbosity=max(verbosity - 1, 0),
++                interactive=interactive,
++                database=self.connection.alias,
++                run_syncdb=True,
++            )
++        finally:
++            settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = migration_modules
++
+     def set_as_test_mirror(self, primary_settings_dict):
+         """
+         Set this database up to be used in testing as a mirror of a primary
+
+Wait, I need to look more carefully at the code flow. The actual issue is that when `MIGRATE` is `False`, the `_create_test_db` method doesn't run any migrations/syncdb, but the code still tries to serialize. Let me re-read the traceback.
+
+Looking at line 69 of the traceback reference:
+```python
+call_command(
+    'migrate',
+    ...
+    run_syncdb=True,
+)
+```
+
+This only runs when `MIGRATE` is True. When `MIGRATE` is False, no tables are created, but serialization is still attempted.
+
+The fix should be: when `MIGRATE` is `False`, we still need to create tables by running `migrate --run-syncdb` but with `MIGRATION_MODULES` set to disable all migrations (so it uses syncdb behavior).
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
+@@ -58,7 +58,9 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+         test_database_name = self._get_test_db_name()
+ 
+         if verbosity >= 1:
++            from django.apps import apps
+             action = 'Creating'
++            from django.conf import settings
+             if keepdb:
+                 action = "Using existing"
+ 
+@@ -68,6 +70,21 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+                 interactive=False,
+                 database=self.connection.alias,
+                 run_syncdb=True,
+             )
++        else:
++            old_migration_modules = settings.MIGRATION_MODULES
++            try:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = {
++                    app.label: None
++                    for app in apps.get_app_configs()
++                }
++                call_command(
++                    'migrate',
++                    verbosity=max(verbosity - 1, 0),
++                    interactive=False,
++                    database=self.connection.alias,
++                    run_syncdb=True,
++                )
++            finally:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = old_migration_modules
+
+         # We then serialize the current state of the database into a string
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
+@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
+ import os
+ import sys
+ from io import StringIO
+ 
++from django.apps import apps
++from django.conf import settings
+ from django.core import serializers
+ from django.db import router
+ 
+@@ -58,6 +60,7 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+         test_database_name = self._get_test_db_name()
+ 
+         if verbosity >= 1:
+             action = 'Creating'
+             if keepdb:
+                 action = "Using existing"
+@@ -68,6 +71,21 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+                 interactive=False,
+                 database=self.connection.alias,
+                 run_syncdb=True,
+             )
++        else:
++            old_migration_modules = settings.MIGRATION_MODULES
++            try:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = {
++                    app.label: None
++                    for app in apps.get_app_configs()
++                }
++                call_command(
++                    'migrate',
++                    verbosity=max(verbosity - 1, 0),
++                    interactive=False,
++                    database=self.connection.alias,
++                    run_syncdb=True,
++                )
++            finally:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = old_migration_modules
+
+         # We then serialize the current state of the database into a string
+
+Let me produce the clean patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/base/creation.py
+@@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
+ import os
+ import sys
+ from io import StringIO
+ 
++from django.apps import apps
++from django.conf import settings
+ from django.core import serializers
+ from django.db import router
+ 
+@@ -68,6 +70,21 @@ class BaseDatabaseCreation:
+                 database=self.connection.alias,
+                 run_syncdb=True,
+             )
++        else:
++            old_migration_modules = settings.MIGRATION_MODULES
++            try:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = {
++                    app.label: None
++                    for app in apps.get_app_configs()
++                }
++                call_command(
++                    'migrate',
++                    verbosity=max(verbosity - 1, 0),
++                    interactive=False,
++                    database=self.connection.alias,
++                    run_syncdb=True,
++                )
++            finally:
++                settings.MIGRATION_MODULES = old_migration_modules
+ 
+         # We then serialize the current state of the database into a string

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13551.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Based on the issue description and my knowledge of Django's codebase, I need to generate a patch for Django's `PasswordResetTokenGenerator._make_hash_value()` method in `django/contrib/auth/tokens.py`. The fix is to include the user's email address in the hash value so that changing the email invalidates any outstanding password reset tokens.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/auth/tokens.py
++++ b/django/contrib/auth/tokens.py
+@@ -78,7 +78,9 @@ class PasswordResetTokenGenerator:
+         # Truncate microseconds so that tokens are consistent even if the
+         # database doesn't support microseconds.
+         login_timestamp = '' if user.last_login is None else user.last_login.replace(microsecond=0, tzinfo=None)
+-        return str(user.pk) + user.password + str(login_timestamp) + str(timestamp)
++        email_field = user.get_email_field_name()
++        email = getattr(user, email_field, '') or ''
++        return str(user.pk) + user.password + str(login_timestamp) + str(timestamp) + email
+ 
+     def _num_seconds(self, dt):
+         return int((dt - datetime(2001, 1, 1)).total_seconds())

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13590.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Based on the issue description, I need to create a patch for the Django codebase. The issue is in `django/db/models/sql/query.py` in the `resolve_lookup_value` method. Let me create the patch based on the problem description:
+
+The issue is that when reconstituting a named tuple, Django passes an iterator to the constructor instead of unpacking it with `*`. Named tuples require positional arguments, not an iterator.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
+@@ -1077,7 +1077,7 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
+                     self.resolve_lookup_value(sub_value, can_reuse, allow_joins),
+                 )
+             )
+-            return type(value)(resolved_values)
++            return type(value)(*resolved_values)
+         return value
+ 
+     def solve_lookup_type(self, lookup):
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13658.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+Based on the issue description, I can see this is about the Django framework's ManagementUtility class. The issue describes exactly what needs to be fixed - the CommandParser instantiation needs to pass `prog=self.prog_name`. Let me provide the patch based on the information in the issue:
+
+```
+--- a/django/core/management/__init__.py
++++ b/django/core/management/__init__.py
+@@ -344,7 +344,11 @@ class ManagementUtility:
+         top-level options like '--settings' and '--pythonpath', handling
+         '--help', and following the Django convention for the use of '--'.
+         """
+-        parser = CommandParser(usage='%(prog)s subcommand [options] [args]', add_help=False, allow_abbrev=False)
++        parser = CommandParser(
++            prog=self.prog_name,
++            usage='%(prog)s subcommand [options] [args]',
++            add_help=False,
++            allow_abbrev=False)
+         parser.add_argument('--settings')
+         parser.add_argument('--pythonpath')
+         parser.add_argument('args', nargs='*')
+```

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13660.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+This issue is from the django/django repository, but we're in a different directory. Let me search for the Django source or understand this is about creating a patch for the Django repository.
+
+Based on the issue description, I can see the problem clearly:
+
+1. In `django/core/management/commands/shell.py`, the `exec()` function is called without providing a globals dictionary
+2. When `exec(options['command'])` is called without a globals dict, it uses the current local scope
+3. When a function is defined in the executed code, variables from the outer scope aren't accessible inside the function because they're not in a proper globals dictionary
+
+The fix is to pass an empty dictionary as the second argument to `exec()` so that it creates a proper global namespace.
+
+--- a/django/core/management/commands/shell.py
++++ b/django/core/management/commands/shell.py
+@@ -83,11 +83,11 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+     def handle(self, **options):
+         # Execute the command and exit.
+         if options['command']:
+-            exec(options['command'])
++            exec(options['command'], {})
+             return
+         # Execute stdin if it has anything to read and exit.
+         # Not supported on Windows due to select.select() limitations.
+         if sys.platform != 'win32' and not sys.stdin.isatty() and select.select([sys.stdin], [], [], 0)[0]:
+-            exec(sys.stdin.read())
++            exec(sys.stdin.read(), {})
+             return
+ 
+         available_shells = [options['interface']] if options['interface'] else self.shells

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13710.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I can provide the patch for this issue. The Django admin inline implementation is in `django/contrib/admin/options.py`. The `InlineModelAdmin` class has a `verbose_name_plural` property that currently just falls back to the model's `verbose_name_plural` from its Meta class. The fix should make it derive from the inline's `verbose_name` if that's specified.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/contrib/admin/options.py
++++ b/django/contrib/admin/options.py
+@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
+ import copy
++import re
+ from functools import partial, update_wrapper
+ from django.conf import settings
+ from django.contrib import messages
+@@ -2035,7 +2036,10 @@ class InlineModelAdmin(BaseModelAdmin):
+     @property
+     def verbose_name_plural(self):
+         if self._verbose_name_plural is None:
+-            return self.model._meta.verbose_name_plural
++            if self._verbose_name is None:
++                return self.model._meta.verbose_name_plural
++            else:
++                return format_lazy('{}s', self._verbose_name)
+         else:
+             return self._verbose_name_plural

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13757.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can provide the patch. The issue is in Django's `django/db/models/fields/json.py` file where the `KeyTransformIsNull` lookup doesn't properly exclude JSON null values on SQLite and Oracle when using `__isnull=True`.
+
+The problem is that on SQLite and Oracle, when checking `isnull=True`, the current implementation just checks if the JSON path extraction returns NULL (using `IS NULL`), but this doesn't distinguish between:
+1. The key doesn't exist (should match)
+2. The key exists with JSON `null` value (should NOT match)
+
+The fix is to modify `KeyTransformIsNull.as_sql()` to add an additional check using `HasKey` to ensure the key doesn't exist when `isnull=True` on SQLite and Oracle.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/json.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/json.py
+@@ -366,9 +366,13 @@ class KeyTransformIsNull(lookups.IsNull):
+     # key transforms. Ex: value__j__isnull=True.
+     def as_oracle(self, compiler, connection):
+         if not self.rhs:
+             return HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_oracle(compiler, connection)
+-        return super().as_sql(compiler, connection)
++        lhs, lhs_params = self.lhs.preprocess_lhs(compiler, connection)
++        rhs, rhs_params = self.lhs.preprocess_rhs(compiler, connection)
++        sql = "(NOT %s OR %s IS NULL)" % (HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_sql(compiler, connection)[0], lhs)
++        return sql, tuple(lhs_params) + tuple(rhs_params)
+ 
+     def as_sqlite(self, compiler, connection):
+         if not self.rhs:
+             return HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_sqlite(compiler, connection)
+-        return super().as_sql(compiler, connection)
++        lhs, lhs_params = self.lhs.preprocess_lhs(compiler, connection)
++        rhs, rhs_params = self.lhs.preprocess_rhs(compiler, connection)
++        sql = "(NOT %s OR %s IS NULL)" % (HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_sql(compiler, connection)[0], lhs)
++        return sql, tuple(lhs_params) + tuple(rhs_params)
+
+Wait, let me reconsider this more carefully. The logic should be: when `isnull=True`, we want to match objects where the key does NOT exist. The current implementation just checks if the value IS NULL, but that incorrectly also matches when the key exists with JSON null value.
+
+The correct fix should check that the key does not exist (NOT HasKey):
+
+--- a/django/db/models/fields/json.py
++++ b/django/db/models/fields/json.py
+@@ -366,9 +366,13 @@ class KeyTransformIsNull(lookups.IsNull):
+     # key transforms. Ex: value__j__isnull=True.
+     def as_oracle(self, compiler, connection):
+         if not self.rhs:
+             return HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_oracle(compiler, connection)
+-        return super().as_sql(compiler, connection)
++        sql, params = HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_oracle(compiler, connection)
++        return 'NOT %s' % sql, params
+ 
+     def as_sqlite(self, compiler, connection):
+         if not self.rhs:
+             return HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_sqlite(compiler, connection)
+-        return super().as_sql(compiler, connection)
++        sql, params = HasKey(self.lhs.lhs, self.lhs.key_name).as_sqlite(compiler, connection)
++        return 'NOT %s' % sql, params

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13768.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+This is a Django issue, not related to the current repository. Based on the issue description, I need to create a patch for the Django `Signal.send_robust()` method in `django/dispatch/dispatcher.py`. Let me create the patch based on my knowledge of Django's signal dispatcher code.
+
+The issue requests adding logging for exceptions that are caught in `send_robust()`. Looking at Django's dispatcher code, the `send_robust` method catches exceptions and returns them as part of the response tuple, but doesn't log them. The fix should add a `logger.exception()` call in the except clause.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+--- a/django/dispatch/dispatcher.py
++++ b/django/dispatch/dispatcher.py
+@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
+ import threading
++import logging
+ import weakref
+ 
+ from django.utils.inspect import func_accepts_kwargs
+@@ -5,6 +6,8 @@
+ from django.utils.inspect import func_accepts_kwargs
+ 
++logger = logging.getLogger('django.dispatch')
++
+ 
+ def _make_id(target):
+     if hasattr(target, '__func__'):
+@@ -206,6 +209,12 @@ class Signal:
+                 responses.append((receiver, response))
+             except Exception as err:
++                logger.exception(
++                    'Error calling %s in Signal.send_robust() (%s)',
++                    receiver.__qualname__,
++                    err,
++                )
+                 responses.append((receiver, err))
+         return responses

package/src/templates/antigravity-skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-13925.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+Let me look at common Django code paths for this warning. The issue is related to checking whether a model has an auto-created primary key. I'll generate the patch based on my knowledge of this Django bug.
+
+The bug was in the `_check_default_pk` method in Django's model options. When checking if a model needs a primary key warning (W042), the code wasn't properly checking if the primary key was inherited from a parent model. It was only checking `cls._meta.pk.auto_created` but when a model inherits from another model that defines a primary key, the child model's `_meta.pk` points to the parent's pk field. The fix needs to also check if the pk's model is actually the current model (not an ancestor).
+
+Based on the Django bug report and the typical fix pattern for this issue, the patch should modify the check in `django/db/models/options.py` to verify that when checking for auto-created primary keys, we also ensure the primary key actually belongs to the model being checked (not inherited from a parent).
+
+Here's the fix:
+
+--- a/django/db/models/options.py
++++ b/django/db/models/options.py
+@@ -225,7 +225,8 @@ class Options:
+                     ]
+         return []
+ 
+-    def _check_default_pk(self):
++    @classmethod
++    def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
+-            not self.pk.auto_created
++            self.pk.auto_created and
++            self.pk.model._meta.app_label == self.app_label and
++            type(self.pk.model._meta).object_name == self.object_name
+         ):
+
+Let me reconsider this. Based on my knowledge of the Django codebase, the issue is in `django/db/models/base.py` in the `_check_default_pk` method. The check should verify not just if the primary key is auto-created, but also if it was defined on the current model (not inherited).
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1298,7 +1298,9 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
+-            cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
++            not cls._meta.parents and
++            cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+         ):
+
+Wait, this isn't quite right either. The problem is that `cls._meta.pk.auto_created` returns True even for child models that inherit from a parent with a manually specified primary key. The fix should check if the pk field's model is the same as the current model being checked.
+
+The correct fix is to check if `cls._meta.pk.model == cls` before raising the warning, because if the pk is inherited from a parent, `cls._meta.pk.model` would be the parent class, not the current class.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1298,6 +1298,7 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
++            cls._meta.pk.model == cls and
+             cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+
+However, looking at the description more carefully - the issue is about models that DO have a manually specified primary key in an ancestor, but Django is still raising W042. The check needs to properly handle inheritance of manually-specified primary keys.
+
+When a parent model has `id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)` explicitly defined (not auto-created), child models should not get the W042 warning. The issue is that the check is not properly recognizing that the inherited primary key was manually specified.
+
+The fix should add a check that if the model has parents (i.e., it's using multi-table inheritance), and the primary key comes from the parent, then we shouldn't warn about it because the parent is responsible for defining the primary key type.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1298,6 +1298,9 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
++            not cls._meta.parents and
+             cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+         ):
+
+Actually, this would suppress the warning for all child models, but the issue is more nuanced. Let me look at this again.
+
+The problem is: when a parent defines a primary key manually (like `id = SmallUDIDField()`), child models inheriting from that parent are incorrectly getting the W042 warning. The warning should only be raised if:
+1. The primary key was auto-created, AND
+2. The primary key was created for THIS model (not inherited from a parent)
+
+The condition `cls._meta.pk.auto_created` is True when the PK was auto-created. But we also need to check if it was created for this specific model or inherited. We can check this by seeing if `cls._meta.pk.model._meta.label == cls._meta.label` - if they're different, the PK was inherited.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1298,6 +1298,9 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
++            cls._meta.pk.model._meta.label == cls._meta.label and
+             cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+         ):
+
+This is getting complex. Let me simplify - the cleaner check is just `not cls._meta.parents` since if a model has parents, the primary key definition is the parent's responsibility.
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1298,6 +1298,7 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     @classmethod
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
++            not cls._meta.parents and
+             cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+         ):
+
+--- a/django/db/models/base.py
++++ b/django/db/models/base.py
+@@ -1300,6 +1300,7 @@ class Model(metaclass=ModelBase):
+     def _check_default_pk(cls):
+         if (
+             cls._meta.pk.auto_created and
++            cls._meta.pk.model._meta.label == cls._meta.label and
+             not settings.is_overridden('DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD') and
+             not cls._meta.app_config._is_default_auto_field_overridden
+         ):