port-nuker 1.0.0

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15388.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+# django__django-15388
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and my knowledge of Django's autoreload functionality, I can generate the patch. The `template_changed` function in `django/template/autoreload.py` is a signal listener that handles file changes. When it returns `True`, it indicates the change was handled and prevents normal reload. The fix is to ensure Python files are never treated as template files.
+
+```
+--- a/django/template/autoreload.py
++++ b/django/template/autoreload.py
+@@ -48,6 +48,9 @@ def reset_loaders():
+ 
+ @receiver(autoreload_started, dispatch_uid="template_loaders_watch_changes")
+ def watch_for_template_changes(sender, **kwargs):
+     for directory in get_template_directories():
+         sender.watch_dir(directory, "**/*")
+ 
+ 
+ @receiver(file_changed, dispatch_uid="template_loaders_file_changed")
+ def template_changed(sender, file_path, **kwargs):
++    if file_path.suffix.lower() in {'.py', '.pyc', '.pyo'}:
++        return None
+     for template_dir in get_template_directories():
+         if template_dir in file_path.parents:
+             reset_loaders()
+```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15400.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# django__django-15400
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the analysis provided and standard Django source code structure, I can generate the patch for the `SimpleLazyObject.__radd__` issue. The fix adds the `__radd__` method using the `new_method_proxy` pattern with a lambda that reverses the operand order.
+
+```
+--- a/django/utils/functional.py
++++ b/django/utils/functional.py
+@@ -396,6 +396,8 @@ class SimpleLazyObject(LazyObject):
+     # SimpleLazyObject to int.
+     __copy__ = new_method_proxy(copy.copy)
+ 
++    __radd__ = new_method_proxy(lambda self, other: other + self)
++
+     def __deepcopy__(self, memo):
+         if self._wrapped is empty:
+             # We have to use SimpleLazyObject, not self.__class__, because the
+```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15498.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# django__django-15498
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/views/static.py
++++ b/django/views/static.py
+@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ def was_modified_since(header=None, mtime=0, size=0):
+     """
+     try:
++        if header is None or len(header) == 0:
++            raise ValueError("Empty or missing header")
+         matches = re.match(
+             r"^([^;]+)(; length=([0-9]+))?$",
+             header,

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15695.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,39 @@
+# django__django-15695
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the issue description and architect's analysis, I can generate the patch. The issue is in the `database_backwards()` method of `RenameIndex` - when `old_name` is not provided (unnamed index from `unique_together`), the backward operation should restore the auto-generated name rather than being a noop.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
+@@ -967,12 +967,28 @@ class RenameIndex(IndexOperation):
+ 
+     def database_backwards(self, app_label, schema_editor, from_state, to_state):
+         if self.old_fields:
+-            # Backward operation with unnamed index is a no-op.
+-            return
++            model = to_state.apps.get_model(app_label, self.model_name)
++            if not self.allow_migrate_model(schema_editor.connection.alias, model):
++                return
++
++            to_model_state = to_state.models[app_label, self.model_name_lower]
++            old_index = to_model_state.get_index_by_name(self.new_name)
++            # Restore the old auto-generated name.
++            old_index.name = schema_editor._create_index_name(
++                model._meta.db_table,
++                self.old_fields,
++            )
++            from_model_state = from_state.models[app_label, self.model_name_lower]
++            new_index = from_model_state.get_index_by_name(self.new_name)
++            schema_editor.rename_index(model, new_index, old_index)
++            # Swap back.
++            old_index.name = self.new_name
++            return
+ 
+         self.new_name, self.old_name = self.old_name, self.new_name
+         self.database_forwards(app_label, schema_editor, from_state, to_state)
+         self.new_name, self.old_name = self.old_name, self.new_name
+ 
+     def describe(self):
+```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15738.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# django__django-15738
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on my knowledge of Django's migration autodetector and the issue described, I can generate the patch. The problem is that when a ForeignKey field is changed to a ManyToManyField with the same name while removing `unique_together`, the autodetector doesn't properly handle the dependency ordering. The `AlterUniqueTogether` operation tries to reference a constraint that includes the field being changed, but the field type change affects how constraints are looked up.
+
+```
+--- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
+@@ -166,6 +166,12 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+         self.renamed_models = {}
+         self.renamed_models_rel = {}
+         self.renamed_fields = {}
++        # Track fields that are being replaced (same name, different type)
++        # This happens when e.g. a ForeignKey is changed to ManyToManyField
++        # We need to track these to ensure proper operation ordering:
++        # AlterUniqueTogether/AlterIndexTogether must happen before RemoveField,
++        # and RemoveField must happen before AddField for replaced fields.
++        self.replaced_fields = {}
+ 
+     def _detect_changes(self, convert_apps=None, graph=None):
+         """
+@@ -228,6 +234,7 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+         # This avoids the same computation in generate_removed_fields()
+         # and generate_added_fields().
+         self.old_field_keys = set()
++        self.new_field_keys = set()
+         for app_label, model_name in sorted(self.kept_model_keys):
+             old_model_name = self.renamed_models.get((app_label, model_name), model_name)
+             old_model_state = self.from_state.models[app_label, old_model_name]
+@@ -238,6 +245,15 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+             self.old_field_keys.update(
+                 (app_label, model_name, field_name) for field_name in old_field_names
+             )
++            self.new_field_keys.update(
++                (app_label, model_name, field_name) for field_name in new_field_names
++            )
++            # Detect replaced fields (same name exists in both but will be removed and re-added
++            # due to type change - this is detected later when generate_added/removed_fields run)
++            for field_name in old_field_names & new_field_names:
++                old_field = old_model_state.fields[field_name]
++                new_field = new_model_state.fields[field_name]
++                # Check will be done in generate_altered_fields or the add/remove detection
+         self.generate_renamed_fields()
+         self.generate_removed_fields()
+         self.generate_added_fields()
+@@ -422,8 +438,21 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                             dependencies.append(
+                                 (app_label, model_name, field_name, "order_wrt_unset")
+                             )
+-                        # Skip making creation depend on removal, since removal
+-                        # is handled distinctly
++                        # If this is a field being replaced (same name, different type),
++                        # the AddField must depend on the RemoveField of the old field.
++                        # This handles cases like ForeignKey -> ManyToManyField.
++                        if (app_label, model_name, field_name) in self.old_field_keys:
++                            # Check if the old field is actually being removed (different type)
++                            old_model_name = self.renamed_models.get(
++                                (app_label, model_name), model_name
++                            )
++                            old_model_state = self.from_state.models[app_label, old_model_name]
++                            if field_name in old_model_state.fields:
++                                old_field = old_model_state.fields[field_name]
++                                if not old_field.many_to_many and field.many_to_many:
++                                    dependencies.append(
++                                        (app_label, model_name, field_name, "removed")
++                                    )
+                         dependencies.append(
+                             (related_app_label, related_model_name, None, "model_state")
+                         )
+@@ -901,6 +930,21 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                 old_model_state = self.from_state.models[app_label, old_model_name]
+                 new_model_state = self.to_state.models[app_label, model_name]
+                 if old_model_state.options.get(option_name) != new_model_state.options.get(option_name):
++                    # Add dependencies for fields that are being removed as part of a
++                    # field type change (e.g., ForeignKey -> ManyToManyField).
++                    # The constraint alteration must happen before the field is removed.
++                    dependencies = []
++                    old_value = old_model_state.options.get(option_name)
++                    if old_value:
++                        for field_names in old_value:
++                            for field_name in field_names:
++                                # If this field exists in old but will be replaced (removed then re-added
++                                # with different type), we need to depend on it still existing
++                                if (app_label, model_name, field_name) in self.old_field_keys:
++                                    old_field = old_model_state.fields.get(field_name)
++                                    new_field = new_model_state.fields.get(field_name)
++                                    if old_field and new_field and type(old_field) != type(new_field):
++                                        dependencies.append((app_label, model_name, field_name, "alter"))
+                     self.add_operation(
+                         app_label,
+                         getattr(operations, operation_name)(
+@@ -908,6 +952,7 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                             option_name: new_model_state.options.get(option_name),
+                             **{option_name: new_model_state.options.get(option_name)},
+                         },
++                        dependencies=dependencies,
+                     )
+ 
+     def generate_alter_order_with_respect_to(self):
+@@ -934,6 +979,25 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+             new_field = new_model_state.fields.get(field_name)
+             if not old_field.is_relation or not new_field.is_relation:
+                 continue
++            # Handle case where a field is being replaced (same name, different type)
++            # E.g., ForeignKey -> ManyToManyField. In this case, we need to:
++            # 1. Remove the old field first
++            # 2. Then add the new field
++            # The dependency chain should be: AlterUniqueTogether -> RemoveField -> AddField
++            old_is_fk = isinstance(old_field, models.ForeignKey) if hasattr(models, 'ForeignKey') else (
++                old_field.many_to_many == False and old_field.one_to_one == False and old_field.is_relation
++            )
++            new_is_m2m = new_field.many_to_many if hasattr(new_field, 'many_to_many') else False
++            # This is handled as remove+add, not as an alter
++            if type(old_field) != type(new_field):
++                # Different field types - will be handled by generate_removed_fields
++                # and generate_added_fields, not here
++                # Mark it as a replaced field so proper dependencies are set up
++                if (app_label, model_name) not in self.replaced_fields:
++                    self.replaced_fields[(app_label, model_name)] = set()
++                self.replaced_fields[(app_label, model_name)].add(field_name)
++                continue
+             old_rel = old_field.remote_field if hasattr(old_field, 'remote_field') else old_field.rel
+             new_rel = new_field.remote_field if hasattr(new_field, 'remote_field') else new_field.rel
+             if old_rel.model != new_rel.model:
+```
+
+Wait, I need to provide a cleaner, more focused patch based on the actual Django codebase structure. Let me generate a proper patch:
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/autodetector.py
+@@ -160,6 +160,7 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+         self.renamed_models = {}
+         self.renamed_models_rel = {}
+         self.renamed_fields = {}
++        self.replaced_fields = set()
+ 
+     def _detect_changes(self, convert_apps=None, graph=None):
+         """
+@@ -217,6 +218,20 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+             self.old_field_keys.update(
+                 (app_label, model_name, field_name) for field_name in old_field_names
+             )
++            # Detect fields that exist in both old and new but with incompatible types
++            # (e.g., ForeignKey -> ManyToManyField). These need special handling for
++            # operation ordering.
++            for field_name in old_field_names & new_field_names:
++                old_field = old_model_state.fields[field_name]
++                new_field = new_model_state.fields[field_name]
++                # A ForeignKey changing to ManyToManyField (or vice versa) is not
++                # a simple alteration - it requires remove + add. Track these fields
++                # so we can ensure proper dependency ordering with unique_together.
++                old_is_m2m = old_field.many_to_many if hasattr(old_field, 'many_to_many') else False
++                new_is_m2m = new_field.many_to_many if hasattr(new_field, 'many_to_many') else False
++                if old_is_m2m != new_is_m2m:
++                    self.replaced_fields.add((app_label, model_name, field_name))
++
+         self.generate_renamed_fields()
+         self.generate_removed_fields()
+         self.generate_added_fields()
+@@ -900,6 +915,16 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                 old_model_state = self.from_state.models[app_label, old_model_name]
+                 new_model_state = self.to_state.models[app_label, model_name]
+                 if old_model_state.options.get(option_name) != new_model_state.options.get(option_name):
++                    # When removing unique_together that includes a field being replaced
++                    # (e.g., ForeignKey -> ManyToManyField), ensure the operation runs
++                    # before the field removal.
++                    dependencies = []
++                    old_value = old_model_state.options.get(option_name) or set()
++                    for field_names in old_value:
++                        for field_name in field_names:
++                            if (app_label, model_name, field_name) in self.replaced_fields:
++                                dependencies.append((app_label, model_name, field_name, "foo"))
++                                break
+                     self.add_operation(
+                         app_label,
+                         getattr(operations, operation_name)(
+@@ -907,6 +932,7 @@ class MigrationAutodetector:
+                             option_name: new_model_state.options.get(option_name),
+                             **{option_name: new_model_state.options.get(option_name)},
+                         },
++                        dependencies=dependencies,
+                     )
+ 
+     def generate_alter_order_with_respect_to(self):

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15781.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+# django__django-15781
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/core/management/base.py
++++ b/django/core/management/base.py
+@@ -285,10 +285,11 @@ class BaseCommand:
+         """
+         Create and return the ``ArgumentParser`` which will be used to
+         parse the arguments to this command.
+         """
++        kwargs.setdefault("formatter_class", DjangoHelpFormatter)
+         parser = CommandParser(
+             prog="%s %s" % (os.path.basename(prog_name), subcommand),
+             description=self.help or None,
+-            formatter_class=DjangoHelpFormatter,
+             missing_args_message=getattr(self, "missing_args_message", None),
+             called_from_command_line=getattr(self, "_called_from_command_line", None),
+             **kwargs,
+         )

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15789.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+# django__django-15789
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and standard Django codebase structure, I can generate the patch for adding an encoder parameter to `django.utils.html.json_script()`:
+
+```
+--- a/django/utils/html.py
++++ b/django/utils/html.py
+@@ -62,12 +62,15 @@ _json_script_escapes = {
+ }
+ 
+ 
+-def json_script(value, element_id=None):
++def json_script(value, element_id=None, encoder=DjangoJSONEncoder):
+     """
+     Escape all the HTML/XML special characters with their unicode escapes, so
+     value is safe to be output anywhere except for inside a tag attribute. Wrap
+     the escaped JSON in a script tag.
+     """
++    from django.core.serializers.json import DjangoJSONEncoder
++    if encoder is None:
++        encoder = DjangoJSONEncoder
+-    json_str = json.dumps(value, cls=DjangoJSONEncoder).translate(_json_script_escapes)
++    json_str = json.dumps(value, cls=encoder).translate(_json_script_escapes)
+     if element_id:
+         template = '<script id="{}" type="application/json">{}</script>'
+         args = (element_id, mark_safe(json_str))
+```
+
+Let me provide a cleaner, correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/utils/html.py
++++ b/django/utils/html.py
+@@ -62,12 +62,13 @@ _json_script_escapes = {
+ }
+ 
+ 
+-def json_script(value, element_id=None):
++def json_script(value, element_id=None, encoder=DjangoJSONEncoder):
+     """
+     Escape all the HTML/XML special characters with their unicode escapes, so
+     value is safe to be output anywhere except for inside a tag attribute. Wrap
+     the escaped JSON in a script tag.
+     """
+-    json_str = json.dumps(value, cls=DjangoJSONEncoder).translate(_json_script_escapes)
++    json_str = json.dumps(value, cls=encoder).translate(_json_script_escapes)
+     if element_id:
+         template = '<script id="{}" type="application/json">{}</script>'
+         args = (element_id, mark_safe(json_str))
+--- a/docs/ref/utils.txt
++++ b/docs/ref/utils.txt
+@@ -263,6 +263,17 @@ escaping HTML.
+     recommended over :tfilter:`escape` due to its stronger safety
+     guarantees.
+ 
++``django.utils.html``
++=====================
++
++.. module:: django.utils.html
++   :synopsis: HTML helper functions
++
++.. function:: json_script(value, element_id=None, encoder=DjangoJSONEncoder)
++
++    Escapes all HTML/XML special characters with their unicode escapes, so
++    value is safe to be output anywhere except for inside a tag attribute.
++    Wraps the escaped JSON in a script tag. The optional ``encoder`` parameter
++    allows specifying a custom JSON encoder class, defaulting to
++    ``DjangoJSONEncoder``.

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15790.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# django__django-15790
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on the architect's analysis and my knowledge of Django's template checks system, I can generate the patch. The `check_for_template_tags_with_the_same_name` function collects template tag library modules and reports an error (E003) when the same library name maps to multiple modules. The bug is that it uses a list to store modules, so when the same module path appears twice (from auto-discovery and explicit config), it triggers a false positive.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+```
+--- a/django/core/checks/templates.py
++++ b/django/core/checks/templates.py
+@@ -50,14 +50,14 @@ def check_for_template_tags_with_the_same_name(app_configs, **kwargs):
+     libraries = defaultdict(list)
+ 
+     for conf in settings.TEMPLATES:
+         custom_libraries = conf.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("libraries", {})
+         for module_name, module_path in custom_libraries.items():
+             libraries[module_name].append(module_path)
+ 
+     for module_name, module_path in get_template_tag_modules():
+         libraries[module_name].append(module_path)
+ 
+     for library_name, items in libraries.items():
+-        if len(items) > 1:
++        if len(set(items)) > 1:
+             errors.append(
+                 Error(
+                     E003.msg.format(
+                         repr(library_name),
+-                        ", ".join(repr(item) for item in items),
++                        ", ".join(repr(item) for item in sorted(set(items))),
+                     ),
+                     id=E003.id,
+                 )
+             )
+ 
+     return errors
+```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15814.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# django__django-15814
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
++++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
+@@ -742,6 +742,7 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
+                     if from_parent:
+                         field_model = from_parent
+                 column = field.get_col(alias, output_field=field)
++                cur_model = cur_model._meta.concrete_model
+                 opts = cur_model._meta
+                 columns.append(column)
+                 select_idx = len(select_list)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15819.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+# django__django-15819
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+Based on my knowledge of Django's inspectdb command and the issue description, I can generate the patch. The inspectdb.py file generates Django models from existing database tables. The fix needs to track which related models have been used for ForeignKey/OneToOneField fields within each model and add `related_name` when there are duplicates.
+
+Here's the patch:
+
+```
+--- a/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
++++ b/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
+@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+             yield ''
+             yield ''
+             yield 'class %s(models.Model):' % table2model(table_name)
++            # Track used relations to detect duplicates needing related_name
++            used_relations = {}
+             known_models.append(table2model(table_name))
+             used_column_names = []  # Holds column names used in the table so far
+             column_to_field_name = {}  # Maps column names to names of model fields
+@@ -119,9 +121,18 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+                     if rel_to in known_models:
+                         field_type = '%s(%s' % (rel_type, rel_to)
+                     else:
+-                        field_type = "%s('%s'" % (rel_type, rel_to)
++                        field_type = '%s(%r' % (rel_type, rel_to)
++
++                    # Track relations to same model and add related_name if needed
++                    if rel_to in used_relations:
++                        extra_params['related_name'] = '%s_%s_set' % (
++                            table_name.lower(), att_name
++                        )
++                        # Also add related_name to the first occurrence if not done
++                        if used_relations[rel_to] is not None:
++                            first_field, first_line_idx = used_relations[rel_to]
++                            used_relations[rel_to] = None  # Mark as handled
++                    else:
++                        used_relations[rel_to] = (att_name, len(used_column_names))
+                 else:
+                     # Calling `get_field_type` to get the field type string and any
+                     # additional parameters and notes.
+```
+
+Wait, I need to reconsider this approach. The issue is that inspectdb generates field definitions line by line, so we can't easily go back and modify a previous field. Let me create a simpler, more practical patch:
+
+```
+--- a/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
++++ b/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
+@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+             yield ''
+             yield ''
+             yield 'class %s(models.Model):' % table2model(table_name)
++            # Track used relations to detect duplicates needing related_name
++            used_relations = {}
+             known_models.append(table2model(table_name))
+             used_column_names = []  # Holds column names used in the table so far
+             column_to_field_name = {}  # Maps column names to names of model fields
+@@ -121,6 +123,15 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+                         field_type = '%s(%s' % (rel_type, rel_to)
+                     else:
+                         field_type = "%s('%s'" % (rel_type, rel_to)
++
++                    # Add related_name to avoid clashes when multiple FKs
++                    # reference the same model
++                    if rel_to in used_relations:
++                        extra_params['related_name'] = '%s' % att_name
++                    else:
++                        used_relations[rel_to] = att_name
++                    if used_relations.get(rel_to) and used_relations[rel_to] != att_name:
++                        extra_params['related_name'] = '%s' % att_name
+                 else:
+                     # Calling `get_field_type` to get the field type string and any
+                     # additional parameters and notes.
+```
+
+Actually, a cleaner approach is to always add related_name when there are multiple FK fields to the same model. Let me provide the correct patch:
+
+--- a/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
++++ b/django/core/management/commands/inspectdb.py
+@@ -58,6 +58,8 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+             yield ''
+             yield ''
+             yield 'class %s(models.Model):' % table2model(table_name)
++            # Track relations to detect when multiple FKs reference same model
++            used_relations = {}
+             known_models.append(table2model(table_name))
+             used_column_names = []  # Holds column names used in the table so far
+             column_to_field_name = {}  # Maps column names to names of model fields
+@@ -121,6 +123,12 @@ class Command(BaseCommand):
+                         field_type = '%s(%s' % (rel_type, rel_to)
+                     else:
+                         field_type = "%s('%s'" % (rel_type, rel_to)
++
++                    # Add related_name to avoid reverse accessor clashes when
++                    # multiple ForeignKey fields reference the same model
++                    if rel_to in used_relations:
++                        extra_params['related_name'] = att_name
++                    used_relations[rel_to] = att_name
+                 else:
+                     # Calling `get_field_type` to get the field type string and any
+                     # additional parameters and notes.

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15851.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+# django__django-15851
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/backends/postgresql/client.py
++++ b/django/db/backends/postgresql/client.py
+@@ -17,7 +17,6 @@ class DatabaseClient(BaseDatabaseClient):
+         dbname = settings_dict.get("NAME") or settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("database")
+         user = settings_dict.get("USER")
+         passwd = settings_dict.get("PASSWORD")
+-        service = settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("service")
+         sslmode = settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("sslmode")
+         sslrootcert = settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("sslrootcert")
+         sslcert = settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("sslcert")
+@@ -25,10 +24,6 @@ class DatabaseClient(BaseDatabaseClient):
+ 
+         args = [cls.executable_name]
+ 
+-        if service:
+-            args += ["-d", service]
+-        elif dbname:
+-            args += ["-d", dbname]
+         if user:
+             args += ["-U", user]
+         if host:
+@@ -50,6 +45,13 @@ class DatabaseClient(BaseDatabaseClient):
+             env["PGSSLCERT"] = str(sslcert)
+         if sslkey:
+             env["PGSSLKEY"] = str(sslkey)
++
++        args.extend(parameters)
++
++        service = settings_dict.get("OPTIONS", {}).get("service")
++        if service:
++            args += ["-d", service]
++        elif dbname:
++            args += ["-d", dbname]
+ 
+-        args.extend(parameters)
+         return args, (env or None)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15902.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# django__django-15902
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/forms/formsets.py
++++ b/django/forms/formsets.py
+@@ -26,6 +26,10 @@ class ManagementForm(Form):
+     cleaned_data when the form is valid. See also
+     total_form_count and initial_form_count.
+     """
++    # Use explicit template_name to avoid deprecation warning. The specific
++    # template is irrelevant since ManagementForm only renders hidden inputs.
++    template_name = "django/forms/div.html"
++
+     TOTAL_FORMS = IntegerField(widget=HiddenInput)
+     INITIAL_FORMS = IntegerField(widget=HiddenInput)
+     # MIN_NUM_FORM_COUNT and MAX_NUM_FORM_COUNT are output with the rest of the

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-15996.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+# django__django-15996
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/db/migrations/serializer.py
++++ b/django/db/migrations/serializer.py
+@@ -120,9 +120,19 @@ class EnumSerializer(BaseSerializer):
+     def serialize(self):
+         enum_class = self.value.__class__
+         module = enum_class.__module__
+-        return (
+-            "%s.%s[%r]" % (module, enum_class.__qualname__, self.value.name),
+-            {"import %s" % module},
+-        )
++        if self.value.name is not None:
++            return (
++                "%s.%s[%r]" % (module, enum_class.__qualname__, self.value.name),
++                {"import %s" % module},
++            )
++        else:
++            # Handle combination of Enum flags
++            import enum
++            members, _ = enum._decompose(enum_class, self.value)
++            names = [
++                "%s.%s.%s" % (module, enum_class.__qualname__, member.name)
++                for member in members
++            ]
++            return (" | ".join(names), {"import %s" % module})

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-10-37-54/swebench-loki-patches/django__django-16041.patch

@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+# django__django-16041
+# Loki Mode Multi-Agent Patch
+# Attempts: 1
+
+--- a/django/forms/formsets.py
++++ b/django/forms/formsets.py
+@@ -255,13 +255,17 @@ class BaseFormSet(RenderableFormMixin):
+     @cached_property
+     def empty_form(self):
+         form = self.form(
+-            auto_id=self.auto_id,
+-            prefix=self.add_prefix("__prefix__"),
+-            empty_permitted=True,
+-            use_required_attribute=False,
+-            **self.get_form_kwargs(None),
+-            renderer=self.renderer,
++            **{
++                **self.get_form_kwargs(None),
++                "auto_id": self.auto_id,
++                "prefix": self.add_prefix("__prefix__"),
++                "empty_permitted": True,
++                "use_required_attribute": False,
++                "renderer": self.renderer,
++            },
+         )
+         self.add_fields(form, None)
+         return form