port-nuker 1.0.1 → 1.0.4

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16046.patch

@@ -1,16 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description, I understand the problem. The Django `numberformat.py` file has code that checks if `str_number[0] == "-"` to detect negative numbers, but when the number field is null/empty, this causes an `IndexError: string index out of range` because you can't index into an empty string.
-
-The fix is to check if `str_number` is non-empty before checking its first character. Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/utils/numberformat.py
-+++ b/django/utils/numberformat.py
-@@ -18,6 +18,9 @@ def format(number, decimal_sep, decimal_pos=None, grouping=0, thousand_sep='',
-     # sign
-     sign = ''
-     str_number = str(number)
-+    if not str_number:
-+        return ''
-+
-     if str_number[0] == '-':
-         sign = '-'
-         str_number = str_number[1:]

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16139.patch

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-This appears to be a task asking me to generate a patch for Django's codebase based on the issue description. The issue is in the `UserChangeForm` class where the password reset link is constructed using a relative path `../password/` which breaks when the admin is accessed via a `to_field` parameter.
-
-Based on the issue description, the fix is straightforward:
-- Current code: `password.help_text = password.help_text.format("../password/")`
-- Fixed code: `password.help_text = password.help_text.format(f"../../{self.instance.pk}/password/")`
-
-The file in question is `django/contrib/auth/forms.py` based on standard Django structure.
-
---- a/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/auth/forms.py
-@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ class UserChangeForm(forms.ModelForm):
-         super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
-         password = self.fields.get("password")
-         if password:
--            password.help_text = password.help_text.format("../password/")
-+            password.help_text = password.help_text.format(f"../../{self.instance.pk}/password/")
-         user_permissions = self.fields.get("user_permissions")
-         if user_permissions:
-             user_permissions.queryset = user_permissions.queryset.select_related(

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16229.patch

@@ -1,142 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I can analyze and fix this issue. The problem is in `django/forms/models.py` in the `apply_limit_choices_to_to_formfield` function or more specifically in how the form field's `show_hidden_initial` is determined.
-
-The issue is:
-1. When a model field has a callable default, Django's form field gets `show_hidden_initial=True` 
-2. This is because the callable is evaluated, making it appear the field has an initial value that could change
-3. However, for fields with callable defaults that return empty/default values (like `list`), this causes issues with `has_changed()` detection
-
-Looking at Django's code, the fix should be in `django/forms/models.py` where `show_hidden_initial` is set based on whether the field has a callable default. The specific issue is that when the default is callable, the form field shouldn't automatically get `show_hidden_initial=True` just because the initial value was derived from a callable.
-
-The fix should be in the function that constructs form fields from model fields. The `show_hidden_initial` should not be set to `True` when the initial value comes from a callable default on the model field.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/forms/models.py
-+++ b/django/forms/models.py
-@@ -92,7 +92,10 @@ def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
- def apply_limit_choices_to_to_formfield(formfield):
-     """Apply limit_choices_to to the formfield's queryset if needed."""
-     from django.db.models import Exists, OuterRef, Q
--    if hasattr(formfield, 'queryset') and hasattr(formfield, 'get_limit_choices_to'):
-+    if hasattr(formfield, "queryset") and hasattr(formfield, "get_limit_choices_to"):
-         limit_choices_to = formfield.get_limit_choices_to()
-         if limit_choices_to:
-             complex_filter = limit_choices_to
-@@ -188,6 +191,10 @@ class ModelForm(BaseForm, metaclass=ModelFormMetaclass):
- def modelform_factory(model, form=ModelForm, fields=None, exclude=None,
-                       formfield_callback=None, widgets=None, localized_fields=None,
-                       labels=None, help_texts=None, error_messages=None):
-+    """
-+    Return a ModelForm containing form fields for the given model. You can
-+    optionally pass a `form` argument to use as a starting point for
-+    constructing the ModelForm.
---- a/django/forms/fields.py
-+++ b/django/forms/fields.py
-@@ -136,8 +136,10 @@ class Field:
-     def has_changed(self, initial, data):
-         """Return True if data differs from initial."""
-         # Always return False if the field is disabled since self.bound_data
--        # always uses the initial value in this case.
-+        # always uses the initial value in this case.
-         if self.disabled:
-             return False
-         try:
-             data = self.to_python(data)
-
-Let me reconsider the actual fix based on the issue description more carefully. The issue is specifically about:
-
-1. A field with `default=list` (callable)
-2. On first submit with error, the hidden initial value gets the user's input
-3. On second submit, validation is bypassed
-
-The root cause is that `show_hidden_initial` is being set to `True` for fields with callable defaults. The fix should ensure that when a form field's initial value is derived from a callable default on a model field, `show_hidden_initial` should be set based on whether the callable actually produces a value that could change between requests.
-
-Looking at the Django code flow:
-1. `modelform_defines_fields` checks fields
-2. `fields_for_model` creates form fields from model fields  
-3. For each field, `formfield()` is called which sets `show_hidden_initial`
-
-The fix should be in how `show_hidden_initial` is determined. When the initial value comes from evaluating a callable default, the resulting value should be used for the hidden initial comparison, not the fact that it came from a callable.
-
---- a/django/forms/models.py
-+++ b/django/forms/models.py
-@@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
- def model_to_dict(instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
-     """
-     Return a dict containing the data in ``instance`` suitable for passing as
-@@ -86,7 +89,14 @@ def fields_for_model(model, fields=None, exclude=None, widgets=None,
-                      formfield_callback=None, localized_fields=None,
-                      labels=None, help_texts=None, error_messages=None,
-                      field_classes=None, *, apply_limit_choices_to=True):
--    """
-+    """Return a dictionary containing form fields for the given model.
-+
-+    ``fields`` is an optional list of field names. If provided, return only the
-+    named fields.
-+
-+    ``exclude`` is an optional list of field names. If provided, exclude the
-+    named fields from the returned fields, even if they are listed in the
-+    ``fields`` argument.
-     field_dict = {}
-     ignored = []
-     opts = model._meta
-
-Based on the issue, the actual fix needs to be in how the initial value is propagated when a callable default is involved. The problem is in `django/forms/models.py` in the function that creates form fields.
-
---- a/django/forms/models.py
-+++ b/django/forms/models.py
-@@ -92,6 +92,9 @@ def fields_for_model(
-             continue
-         kwargs = {}
-+        if form_field is not None and f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
-+            kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
-         if widgets and f.name in widgets:
-             kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
-         if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
-
-Wait, I need to be more precise about the location of the fix. Let me provide the correct patch based on Django's actual codebase structure:
-
---- a/django/forms/models.py
-+++ b/django/forms/models.py
-@@ -47,6 +47,12 @@ __all__ = (
- ALL_FIELDS = "__all__"
- 
- 
-+def _get_default_value(field):
-+    """Return the default value for a model field, calling it if callable."""
-+    if callable(field.default):
-+        return field.default()
-+    return field.default
-+
-+
- def construct_instance(form, instance, fields=None, exclude=None):
-     """
-     Construct and return a model instance from the bound ``form``'s
-@@ -91,6 +97,10 @@ def fields_for_model(
-             kwargs = {}
-             if widgets and f.name in widgets:
-                 kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
-+            # Don't show hidden initial for fields with callable defaults,
-+            # as the value has already been evaluated.
-+            if f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
-+                kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
-             if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
-                 localized_fields and f.name in localized_fields
-             ):
-
-Actually, looking at this more carefully, the real issue is about how form fields determine `show_hidden_initial`. The issue is that when a model field has a callable default, the form field's `show_hidden_initial` becomes True, which causes issues with the `has_changed()` detection.
-
-Let me provide the correct minimal patch:
-
---- a/django/forms/models.py
-+++ b/django/forms/models.py
-@@ -93,6 +93,9 @@ def fields_for_model(
-         kwargs = {}
-         if widgets and f.name in widgets:
-             kwargs["widget"] = widgets[f.name]
-+        # Fields with callable defaults should not show hidden initial.
-+        if f.has_default() and callable(f.default):
-+            kwargs["show_hidden_initial"] = False
-         if localized_fields == ALL_FIELDS or (
-             localized_fields and f.name in localized_fields
-         ):

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16255.patch

@@ -1,21 +0,0 @@
-This is not the Django repository. The task is to generate a patch for the Django sitemaps issue. Based on the problem statement and the hint, I need to generate the patch. Let me create the fix based on the information provided:
-
-The issue is in `django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py` at the `get_latest_lastmod` method. When a sitemap has no items but has a callable `lastmod`, it raises a `ValueError` because `max()` is called on an empty sequence.
-
-The hint suggests using the default argument of `max()`. Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/sitemaps/__init__.py
-@@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ class Sitemap:
-         if not hasattr(self, "lastmod"):
-             return None
-         if callable(self.lastmod):
--            try:
--                return max([self.lastmod(item) for item in self.items()])
--            except TypeError:
-+            try:
-+                return max([self.lastmod(item) for item in self.items()], default=None)
-+            except TypeError:
-                 return None
-         else:
-             return self.lastmod

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16379.patch

@@ -1,32 +0,0 @@
-This is a different repository. The task is asking me to generate a patch for the Django repository's `FileBasedCache.has_key` method. I need to understand the issue and create the appropriate patch based on the problem description.
-
-Based on the issue description, the problem is in `django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py`. The `has_key` method has a race condition:
-
-```python
-def has_key(self, key, version=None):
-    fname = self._key_to_file(key, version)
-    if os.path.exists(fname):
-        with open(fname, "rb") as f:
-            return not self._is_expired(f)
-    return False
-```
-
-Between `os.path.exists(fname)` and `open(fname, "rb")`, the file can be deleted by another thread, causing a `FileNotFoundError`.
-
-The fix is to handle the `FileNotFoundError` exception instead of checking if the file exists first. Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py
-+++ b/django/core/cache/backends/filebased.py
-@@ -91,7 +91,10 @@ class FileBasedCache(BaseCache):
- 
-     def has_key(self, key, version=None):
-         fname = self._key_to_file(key, version)
--        if os.path.exists(fname):
--            with open(fname, "rb") as f:
--                return not self._is_expired(f)
--        return False
-+        try:
-+            with open(fname, "rb") as f:
-+                return not self._is_expired(f)
-+        except FileNotFoundError:
-+            return False

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16400.patch

@@ -1,34 +0,0 @@
-This is a Django issue but the current directory is not the Django repository. The task is asking me to generate a patch for the Django project. Let me create the patch based on the issue description and the hints provided. The fix is in `django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py`.
-
-Based on the issue description and hints, the problem is:
-1. When `migrate` command is run with a `--database` parameter, the permission creation doesn't respect this parameter
-2. When creating `Permission` objects, the `_state.db` is not set, causing `get_content_type()` to look in the default database instead of the specified one
-3. The fix is to set `_state.db = using` on each `Permission` object before setting the `content_type`
-
-Here's the patch based on the hint provided by Mariusz Felisiak:
-
---- a/django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/auth/management/__init__.py
-@@ -94,10 +94,14 @@ def create_permissions(
-         )
-         .values_list("content_type", "codename")
-     )
--
--    perms = [
--        Permission(codename=codename, name=name, content_type=ct)
--        for ct, (codename, name) in searched_perms
--        if (ct.pk, codename) not in all_perms
--    ]
-+    perms = []
-+    for ct, (codename, name) in searched_perms:
-+        if (ct.pk, codename) not in all_perms:
-+            permission = Permission(
-+                codename=codename,
-+                name=name,
-+                content_type=ct,
-+            )
-+            permission._state.db = using
-+            perms.append(permission)
-     Permission.objects.using(using).bulk_create(perms)
-     if verbosity >= 2:
-         for perm in perms:

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16408.patch

@@ -1,27 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and the hints provided, I can understand the problem and generate the appropriate patch. The issue is that when using multi-level FilteredRelation with select_related(), the local_setter is incorrectly setting the related object on the wrong model because the intermediate object in the join chain is not being fetched.
-
-The hint clearly shows the fix: when `len(joins) > 2`, the `local_setter` should be a no-op function because there's no intermediate object to set the relation on.
-
-Here's the patch based on the provided hints:
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/compiler.py
-@@ -1270,6 +1270,9 @@ class SQLCompiler:
-             if from_obj:
-                 final_field.remote_field.set_cached_value(from_obj, obj)
- 
-+        def no_local_setter(obj, from_obj):
-+            pass
-+
-         def remote_setter(name, obj, from_obj):
-             setattr(from_obj, name, obj)
- 
-@@ -1291,7 +1294,7 @@ class SQLCompiler:
-                 "model": model,
-                 "field": final_field,
-                 "reverse": True,
--                "local_setter": partial(local_setter, final_field),
-+                "local_setter": partial(local_setter, final_field) if len(joins) <= 2 else no_local_setter,
-                 "remote_setter": partial(remote_setter, name),
-                 "from_parent": from_parent,
-             }

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16527.patch

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-This is not a Django repository. Based on the issue description, I need to generate a patch for the Django codebase. The issue is about the `show_save_as_new` context variable in `django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py` at line 102. The fix requires adding `has_add_permission` check.
-
-Based on the problem statement and hints, here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/admin/templatetags/admin_modify.py
-@@ -99,6 +99,7 @@ def submit_row(context):
-         "show_save_as_new": not is_popup
-         and has_change_permission
-         and change
-+        and has_add_permission
-         and save_as,
-         "show_save_and_add_another": (
-             has_add_permission and not is_popup and (not save_as or add)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16595.patch

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can provide the patch. The issue is in `django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py` where the `AlterField.reduce` method doesn't handle the case when the operation it's being compared with is also an `AlterField` on the same field.
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/fields.py
-@@ -233,6 +233,11 @@ class AlterField(FieldOperation):
-             operation.model_name_lower == self.model_name_lower
-             and operation.name_lower == self.name_lower
-         ):
-+            return [operation]
-+        if isinstance(operation, AlterField) and self.is_same_field_operation(
-+            operation
-+        ):
-             return [operation]
-         return super().reduce(operation, app_label)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16816.patch

@@ -1,30 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and the hints provided, I need to create a patch for Django's admin checks. The issue describes that E108 error doesn't catch reverse relations (like `ManyToOneRel`) in `list_display`. 
-
-From the hints, I can see:
-1. The fix should be in `django/contrib/admin/checks.py`
-2. The fix involves checking if the field is a `ManyToOneRel` and raising `FieldDoesNotExist` in that case
-3. The code path is in the `_check_list_display_item` method around line 897-905
-
-Let me construct the patch based on the hints provided:
-
-```
---- a/django/contrib/admin/checks.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/admin/checks.py
-@@ -9,6 +9,7 @@ from django.core.exceptions import FieldDoesNotExist
- from django.db import models
- from django.db.models.constants import LOOKUP_SEP
- from django.db.models.expressions import Combinable
-+from django.db.models.fields.reverse_related import ForeignObjectRel
- from django.forms.models import BaseModelForm, BaseModelFormSet, _get_foreign_key
- from django.template import engines
- from django.template.backends.django import DjangoTemplates
-@@ -897,6 +898,8 @@ class ModelAdminChecks(BaseModelAdminChecks):
-             return []
-         try:
-             field = obj.model._meta.get_field(item)
-+            if isinstance(field, ForeignObjectRel):
-+                raise FieldDoesNotExist
-         except FieldDoesNotExist:
-             try:
-                 field = getattr(obj.model, item)
-```

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16820.patch

@@ -1,188 +0,0 @@
-Let me try to understand the issue based on my knowledge of Django's migration system and the index_together deprecation. This is a well-known Django issue where:
-
-1. `Meta.index_together` is deprecated in favor of `Meta.indexes`
-2. When squashing migrations that transition from `index_together` to `indexes`, the deprecation warnings should be removed
-3. The migration optimizer needs to recognize when `AlterIndexTogether` followed by `AddIndex` (or similar) can be reduced
-
-Let me create the patch based on my understanding of Django's migration system. The key files involved are:
-- `django/db/migrations/optimizer.py` - handles migration optimization
-- `django/db/migrations/operations/models.py` - contains the model operations like `AlterIndexTogether` and `AddIndex`
-
-Based on Django's migration optimizer pattern, the fix should add optimization rules to handle the transition from `index_together` to `indexes`. When squashing migrations, if we see `AlterIndexTogether` removing an index followed by `AddIndex` adding the equivalent index, or vice versa, these should be optimized together to remove the deprecated `index_together` operations.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
-```
---- a/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
-@@ -40,6 +40,17 @@ class MigrationOptimizer:
-         while result != new_operations:
-             result = new_operations
-             new_operations = self._optimize(result, app_label)
-+        # After optimization, reduce AlterIndexTogether operations that are
-+        # now empty to remove deprecation warnings when squashing.
-+        new_operations = self._reduce_alter_index_together(new_operations)
-+        return new_operations
-+
-+    def _reduce_alter_index_together(self, operations):
-+        """
-+        Remove AlterIndexTogether operations that have empty index_together
-+        and whose indexes have been migrated to AddIndex operations.
-+        """
-+        new_operations = []
-+        for i, operation in enumerate(operations):
-+            if isinstance(operation, AlterIndexTogether) and not operation.index_together:
-+                # Check if this empty AlterIndexTogether can be removed
-+                # by verifying all indexes are covered by AddIndex operations
-+                model_name = operation.name_lower
-+                # Get all AddIndex operations for this model that appear before
-+                preceding_add_indexes = [
-+                    op for op in operations[:i]
-+                    if isinstance(op, AddIndex) and op.model_name_lower == model_name
-+                ]
-+                # If we're setting index_together to empty (None or ()),
-+                # and there are AddIndex operations preceding it,
-+                # this indicates a migration from index_together to indexes
-+                # Skip this AlterIndexTogether as it's no longer needed
-+                if preceding_add_indexes or not operation.index_together:
-+                    continue
-+            new_operations.append(operation)
-         return new_operations
-```
-
-Wait, I need to understand the exact issue better. Let me think about this more carefully.
-
-The issue is about migration squashing. When you have:
-1. Migration 1: Creates model with `index_together = [('field1', 'field2')]`
-2. Migration 2: Changes to `indexes = [Index(fields=['field1', 'field2'])]` and removes `index_together`
-
-When squashing, the result should not include `AlterIndexTogether` at all - it should just use the final `indexes` form.
-
-The optimizer needs to recognize this pattern and reduce it. Looking at how Django's optimizer works, it iterates through operations and tries to reduce pairs of operations.
-
-The key is in the `reduce` method of operations. Each operation can define how it reduces with other operations.
-
-Here's the actual patch:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-@@ -531,6 +531,26 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
-     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
-         super().__init__(name, index_together)
- 
-+    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
-+        if isinstance(operation, AlterIndexTogether) and self.name_lower == operation.name_lower:
-+            return [operation]
-+        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
-+
- 
- class AlterOrderWithRespectTo(ModelOptionOperation):
-     """Represent a change with the order_with_respect_to option."""
-
-Actually, I need to look at the actual structure of the Django codebase. Let me provide a patch based on the standard Django 4.2+ codebase structure:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-@@ -753,6 +753,32 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
- 
-     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
-         super().__init__(name, index_together)
-+    
-+    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
-+        if isinstance(operation, (AddIndex, RemoveIndex)) and self.name_lower == operation.model_name_lower:
-+            if self.option_value:
-+                return [operation, self]
-+            else:
-+                # Empty index_together being set, check if this is part of
-+                # index_together -> indexes migration
-+                return [operation]
-+        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
-
-
-Let me provide a more accurate patch based on Django's structure. The issue is specifically about the optimizer reducing operations when squashing migrations that transition from `index_together` to `indexes`.
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/optimizer.py
-@@ -1,3 +1,10 @@
-+from django.db.migrations.operations.models import (
-+    AddIndex,
-+    AlterIndexTogether,
-+    CreateModel,
-+    RemoveIndex,
-+)
-+
-+
- class MigrationOptimizer:
-     """
-     Power the optimization process, where you provide a list of Operations
-@@ -40,6 +47,44 @@ class MigrationOptimizer:
-         while result != new_operations:
-             result = new_operations
-             new_operations = self._optimize(result, app_label)
-+        new_operations = self._optimize_index_together(new_operations)
-+        return new_operations
-+
-+    def _optimize_index_together(self, operations):
-+        """
-+        Remove AlterIndexTogether operations when index_together has been
-+        migrated to Meta.indexes via AddIndex operations. This handles the
-+        index_together -> indexes deprecation transition during squashing.
-+        """
-+        # Build a mapping of models to their index operations
-+        add_index_models = set()
-+        for op in operations:
-+            if isinstance(op, AddIndex):
-+                add_index_models.add(op.model_name_lower)
-+
-+        new_operations = []
-+        for op in operations:
-+            if isinstance(op, AlterIndexTogether):
-+                # If setting index_together to empty and there are AddIndex
-+                # operations for this model, skip the AlterIndexTogether
-+                # as the indexes have been migrated to Meta.indexes
-+                if not op.option_value and op.name_lower in add_index_models:
-+                    continue
-+            elif isinstance(op, CreateModel):
-+                # If CreateModel has both index_together and indexes for the
-+                # same fields, remove index_together
-+                if op.options.get('index_together') and op.options.get('indexes'):
-+                    # Check if all index_together entries are covered by indexes
-+                    # For now, if indexes exist and we're squashing, prefer indexes
-+                    new_options = {**op.options}
-+                    del new_options['index_together']
-+                    op = CreateModel(
-+                        op.name, op.fields, new_options, op.bases, op.managers
-+                    )
-+            new_operations.append(op)
-         return new_operations
-
-Actually, let me reconsider the approach. Looking at how Django handles this more carefully:
-
-The real issue is that when squashing migrations:
-1. You have an initial migration with `index_together` 
-2. Later migration removes `index_together` and adds equivalent `Index` objects to `indexes`
-
-When squashed, the intermediate `AlterIndexTogether` operations should be optimized away, leaving only the final `CreateModel` with `indexes` and no `index_together`.
-
-The fix needs to be in the optimizer to detect when `AlterIndexTogether` is reducing `index_together` to empty (None or empty set) alongside `AddIndex` operations that replace those indexes.
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-@@ -753,6 +753,18 @@ class AlterIndexTogether(AlterTogetherOptionOperation):
- 
-     def __init__(self, name, index_together):
-         super().__init__(name, index_together)
-+
-+    def reduce(self, operation, app_label):
-+        if isinstance(operation, AddIndex) and self.name_lower == operation.model_name_lower:
-+            # If we're setting index_together to empty (or removing entries)
-+            # and adding indexes to replace them, we can drop the
-+            # AlterIndexTogether when the index_together becomes empty.
-+            if not self.option_value:
-+                # index_together is being cleared, just return the AddIndex
-+                return [operation]
-+            return [operation, self]
-+        return super().reduce(operation, app_label)
- 
- 
- class AlterOrderWithRespectTo(ModelOptionOperation):

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-16873.patch

@@ -1,37 +0,0 @@
-This repository doesn't contain the Django source code. Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can provide the fix. The issue is in the `join` filter in `django/template/defaultfilters.py`. 
-
-Looking at the Django source code and the issue:
-1. The `join` filter always escapes the joining string using `conditional_escape(arg)` 
-2. But when `autoescape` is off, the joining string should not be escaped
-
-The current implementation looks something like:
-```python
-@register.filter(is_safe=True, needs_autoescape=True)
-def join(value, arg, autoescape=True):
-    """Join a list with a string, like Python's ``str.join(list)``."""
-    try:
-        if autoescape:
-            value = [conditional_escape(v) for v in value]
-        data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
-    except TypeError:  # Fail silently if arg isn't iterable.
-        return value
-    return mark_safe(data)
-```
-
-The bug is that `conditional_escape(arg)` is called unconditionally regardless of the `autoescape` parameter. When `autoescape` is `off`, the joining string should not be escaped.
-
-Here's the fix:
-
---- a/django/template/defaultfilters.py
-+++ b/django/template/defaultfilters.py
-@@ -586,7 +586,10 @@ def join(value, arg, autoescape=True):
-     try:
-         if autoescape:
-             value = [conditional_escape(v) for v in value]
--        data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
-+            data = conditional_escape(arg).join(value)
-+        else:
-+            data = arg.join(value)
-     except TypeError:  # Fail silently if arg isn't iterable.
-         return value
-     return mark_safe(data)

package/.agent/skills/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-17051.patch

@@ -1,51 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and hint, I have enough context to create the patch. The issue is clear:
-
-1. In `django/db/models/query.py`, the `bulk_create` method removes `returning_fields` when `on_conflict` is set
-2. The fix is to allow `returning_fields` when `on_conflict == OnConflict.UPDATE`
-3. The hint shows the exact diff needed at line 1840
-
-Let me create the patch based on the information provided in the issue:
-
---- a/django/db/models/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/query.py
-@@ -1837,7 +1837,7 @@ class QuerySet(AltersData):
-         inserted_rows = []
-         bulk_return = connection.features.can_return_rows_from_bulk_insert
-         for item in [objs[i : i + batch_size] for i in range(0, len(objs), batch_size)]:
--            if bulk_return and on_conflict is None:
-+            if bulk_return and (on_conflict is None or on_conflict == OnConflict.UPDATE):
-                 inserted_rows.extend(
-                     self._insert(
-                         item,
-@@ -1845,6 +1845,9 @@ class QuerySet(AltersData):
-                         using=self.db,
-                         returning_fields=self.model._meta.db_returning_fields,
-                     )
-+                        on_conflict=on_conflict,
-+                        update_fields=update_fields,
-+                        unique_fields=unique_fields,
-                 )
-             else:
-                 self._insert(
-
-Wait, the hint shows the diff more clearly. Let me re-read the hint and generate the correct patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/query.py
-@@ -1837,13 +1837,16 @@ class QuerySet(AltersData):
-         inserted_rows = []
-         bulk_return = connection.features.can_return_rows_from_bulk_insert
-         for item in [objs[i : i + batch_size] for i in range(0, len(objs), batch_size)]:
--            if bulk_return and on_conflict is None:
-+            if bulk_return and (on_conflict is None or on_conflict == OnConflict.UPDATE):
-                 inserted_rows.extend(
-                     self._insert(
-                         item,
-                         fields=fields,
-                         using=self.db,
-+                        on_conflict=on_conflict,
-+                        update_fields=update_fields,
-+                        unique_fields=unique_fields,
-                         returning_fields=self.model._meta.db_returning_fields,
-                     )
-                 )