wegho-agentes 7.0.4 → 7.0.6

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14667.patch

@@ -1,33 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django and the issue description, I can construct the patch. The bug is in how `defer()` handles the case when it's chained after `only()`. The key file is `django/db/models/query.py` and the method `add_deferred_loading` in `django/db/models/sql/query.py`.
-
-Looking at the issue and the discussion, the bug is specifically in the `add_deferred_loading` method. When `defer()` is called after `only()`, it needs to properly handle removing fields from the "only" set and potentially switching modes when all fields are removed.
-
-The fix mentioned in the discussion is that when you call `defer()` after `only()`, and you're deferring fields that were in the `only()` set, you need to:
-1. Remove those fields from the only set
-2. But if there are additional fields being deferred that weren't in the only set, those should become deferred fields
-
-Let me create the patch based on the Django source code structure:
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/query.py
-@@ -2105,12 +2105,15 @@ class Query(BaseExpression):
-         When the existing set is "immediate", this will work out to
-         removing any field names from the existing set.
-         """
-+        field_names = set(field_names)
-         existing, defer = self.deferred_loading
-         if defer:
-             # Add to existing deferred names.
--            self.deferred_loading = existing.union(field_names), True
-+            self.deferred_loading = existing.union(field_names), defer
-         else:
--            # Remove names from the set of any existing "immediate load" names.
--            self.deferred_loading = existing.difference(field_names), False
-+            # Remove names from the set of any existing "immediate load" names.
-+            # If nothing remains, switch to defer mode.
-+            new_existing = existing.difference(field_names)
-+            new_defer = field_names.difference(existing)
-+            if new_existing:
-+                self.deferred_loading = new_existing, False
-+            else:
-+                self.deferred_loading = new_defer, True

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14672.patch

@@ -1,59 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description, I need to create a patch for Django's `ManyToManyRel` class. The issue states that `through_fields` can be a list, and when hashing the identity property, it fails because lists are unhashable. The solution is to add `make_hashable` call on `self.through_fields`.
-
-Let me understand the Django codebase structure by looking at the issue. The error trace mentions:
-- `/django/db/models/fields/reverse_related.py` - where `ManyToManyRel` and `__hash__` are defined
-
-From the issue, I know:
-1. The `identity` property is used for hashing `ForeignObjectRel` objects
-2. `make_hashable` is already called for `limit_choices_to` 
-3. `through_fields` can be a list and needs `make_hashable` too
-
-The fix should be in the `identity` property of `ManyToManyRel` class. Based on standard Django codebase structure and the issue description, here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/reverse_related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/reverse_related.py
-@@ -310,6 +310,6 @@ class ManyToManyRel(ForeignObjectRel):
-             self.through,
-             self.through_fields,
-             self.db_constraint,
--        )
-+        ) + (make_hashable(self.through_fields),)
- 
-     def get_related_field(self):
-
-Wait, that doesn't look right. Let me reconsider. Looking at the issue more carefully, the identity property returns a tuple that includes `self.through_fields` which can be a list. The fix is to wrap `self.through_fields` with `make_hashable()`.
-
-Based on typical Django structure, the `identity` property in `ManyToManyRel` would look something like:
-
-```python
-@cached_property
-def identity(self):
-    return super().identity + (
-        self.through,
-        self.through_fields,
-        self.db_constraint,
-    )
-```
-
-And it should be:
-
-```python
-@cached_property
-def identity(self):
-    return super().identity + (
-        self.through,
-        make_hashable(self.through_fields),
-        self.db_constraint,
-    )
-```
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/reverse_related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/reverse_related.py
-@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ class ManyToManyRel(ForeignObjectRel):
-     def identity(self):
-         return super().identity + (
-             self.through,
--            self.through_fields,
-+            make_hashable(self.through_fields),
-             self.db_constraint,
-         )

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14730.patch

@@ -1,80 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can create the patch. The issue is about adding a system check that raises an error when developers define a `related_name` on symmetrical ManyToManyFields.
-
-In Django:
-1. ManyToManyField is defined in `django/db/models/fields/related.py`
-2. System checks for related fields are in the same file, within the field's `_check_*` methods
-3. When a ManyToManyField is symmetrical (either explicitly or implicitly for self-referential fields), the reverse relation is not created, so `related_name` is meaningless
-
-The check should be added to the ManyToManyField class and should produce a warning/error when:
-- The field is symmetrical (`self.remote_field.symmetrical == True`)
-- A `related_name` is explicitly provided (not auto-generated)
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-@@ -1172,6 +1172,7 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
-     def check(self, **kwargs):
-         return [
-             *super().check(**kwargs),
-+            *self._check_related_name_is_valid(),
-             *self._check_unique(**kwargs),
-             *self._check_relationship_model(**kwargs),
-             *self._check_ignored_options(**kwargs),
-@@ -1186,6 +1187,21 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
-         else:
-             return []
- 
-+    def _check_related_name_is_valid(self):
-+        if self.remote_field.symmetrical and self.remote_field.related_name:
-+            return [
-+                checks.Error(
-+                    'Many-to-many fields with intermediate tables '
-+                    'must not be symmetrical.',
-+                    obj=self,
-+                    id='fields.E332',
-+                )
-+            ] if hasattr(self.remote_field, 'through') and not self.remote_field.through._meta.auto_created else [
-+                checks.Error(
-+                    'related_name has no effect on ManyToManyField with symmetrical=True.',
-+                    obj=self,
-+                    id='fields.E331',
-+                )
-+            ]
-+        return []
-+
-     def _check_relationship_model(self, from_model=None, **kwargs):
-         if hasattr(self.remote_field.through, '_meta'):
-             qualified_model_name = "%s.%s" % (
-
-Wait, let me reconsider. Looking more carefully at the issue and the existing Django codebase patterns, the check should be simpler. Let me provide a cleaner patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/fields/related.py
-@@ -1172,6 +1172,7 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
-     def check(self, **kwargs):
-         return [
-             *super().check(**kwargs),
-+            *self._check_related_name_is_valid(),
-             *self._check_unique(**kwargs),
-             *self._check_relationship_model(**kwargs),
-             *self._check_ignored_options(**kwargs),
-@@ -1186,6 +1187,18 @@ class ManyToManyField(RelatedField):
-         else:
-             return []
- 
-+    def _check_related_name_is_valid(self):
-+        if self.remote_field.symmetrical and self.remote_field.related_name:
-+            return [
-+                checks.Error(
-+                    'related_name has no effect on ManyToManyField '
-+                    'with symmetrical=True.',
-+                    obj=self,
-+                    id='fields.E331',
-+                )
-+            ]
-+        return []
-+
-     def _check_relationship_model(self, from_model=None, **kwargs):
-         if hasattr(self.remote_field.through, '_meta'):
-             qualified_model_name = "%s.%s" % (

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14752.patch

@@ -1,35 +0,0 @@
-Based on the GitHub issue from django/django repository, I need to create a patch for the `AutocompleteJsonView` class. Let me create the patch based on the issue description. The issue is requesting to refactor the `get()` method to extract the result serialization into a separate `serialize_result()` method.
-
-Looking at the issue description, I can see exactly what needs to be changed:
-
-1. The current code has the result dictionary construction inline in `get()`
-2. The fix is to extract it to a `serialize_result()` method
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/contrib/admin/views/autocomplete.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/admin/views/autocomplete.py
-@@ -26,12 +26,20 @@ class AutocompleteJsonView(BaseListView):
-             raise PermissionDenied
-         self.object_list = self.get_queryset()
-         context = self.get_context_data()
-         return JsonResponse({
-             'results': [
--                {'id': str(getattr(obj, to_field_name)), 'text': str(obj)}
--                for obj in context['object_list']
-+                self.serialize_result(obj, to_field_name)
-+                for obj in context['object_list']
-             ],
-             'pagination': {'more': context['page_obj'].has_next()},
-         })
- 
-+    def serialize_result(self, obj, to_field_name):
-+        """
-+        Convert the provided model object to a dictionary that is added to the
-+        results list.
-+        """
-+        return {'id': str(getattr(obj, to_field_name)), 'text': str(obj)}
-+
-     def get_paginator(self, *args, **kwargs):
-         """Use the ModelAdmin's paginator."""
-         return self.model_admin.get_paginator(self.request, *args, **kwargs)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14787.patch

@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
-Now I have the exact patch. The fix is simple - wrap the partial object with `wraps(method)` to copy the wrapper assignments from the original method to the partial object.
-
-The fix changes:
-```python
-bound_method = partial(method.__get__(self, type(self)))
-```
-to:
-```python
-bound_method = wraps(method)(partial(method.__get__(self, type(self))))
-```
-
-This ensures that the `partial` object gets the `__name__`, `__module__`, `__qualname__`, `__doc__`, `__annotations__`, and `__dict__` attributes from the original `method`, so when decorators like `logger` in the issue try to access `func.__name__`, they can find it.
-
---- a/django/utils/decorators.py
-+++ b/django/utils/decorators.py
-@@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ def _wrapper(self, *args, **kwargs):
-         # 'self' argument, but it's a closure over self so it can call
-         # 'func'. Also, wrap method.__get__() in a function because new
-         # attributes can't be set on bound method objects, only on functions.
--        bound_method = partial(method.__get__(self, type(self)))
-+        bound_method = wraps(method)(partial(method.__get__(self, type(self))))
-         for dec in decorators:
-             bound_method = dec(bound_method)
-         return bound_method(*args, **kwargs)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14855.patch

@@ -1,23 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and the hints provided, I can create the patch. The issue clearly states:
-
-1. The problem is in `django.contrib.admin.helpers` in the `get_admin_url` function
-2. The line `url = reverse(url_name, args=[quote(remote_obj.pk)])` needs to be changed to include `current_app=self.model_admin.admin_site.name`
-3. This was confirmed as the correct fix in the discussion
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/contrib/admin/helpers.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/admin/helpers.py
-@@ -209,7 +209,11 @@ class AdminReadonlyField:
-                 remote_obj.pk,
-             )
-             try:
--                url = reverse(url_name, args=[quote(remote_obj.pk)])
-+                url = reverse(
-+                    url_name,
-+                    args=[quote(remote_obj.pk)],
-+                    current_app=self.model_admin.admin_site.name,
-+                )
-                 return format_html('<a href="{}">{}</a>', url, remote_obj)
-             except NoReverseMatch:
-                 return str(remote_obj)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14915.patch

@@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and hints provided, I can generate the patch. The `ModelChoiceIteratorValue` class is in `django/forms/widgets.py` and needs a `__hash__` method added. According to the hints from the maintainer, the fix is:
-
-```python
-def __hash__(self):
-    return hash(self.value)
-```
-
-The class likely has an `__eq__` method (since `__eq__` without `__hash__` makes objects unhashable in Python 3), and we need to add the `__hash__` method to make it hashable again.
-
---- a/django/forms/widgets.py
-+++ b/django/forms/widgets.py
-@@ -567,6 +567,9 @@ class ModelChoiceIteratorValue:
-     def __eq__(self, other):
-         if isinstance(other, ModelChoiceIteratorValue):
-             other = other.value
-         return self.value == other
-+
-+    def __hash__(self):
-+        return hash(self.value)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14997.patch

@@ -1,40 +0,0 @@
-Based on the problem description and the hints provided, I can understand the issue and generate the fix. The problem is:
-
-1. When SQLite needs to remake a table (during field alterations), it creates a new table and copies data
-2. Constraints containing expressions (like UniqueConstraint with F() expressions) need to have their table references updated
-3. The `rename_table_references` method on `Col` objects updates the table name, but it doesn't check if the Col already has an alias set
-4. When a Col has an alias, it should NOT use the qualified "table.column" format in the SQL output
-5. The bug causes SQL like `"new_table"."column"` to appear in index expressions, which SQLite prohibits
-
-The fix should be in `django/db/models/expressions.py` in the `Col` class's `rename_table_references` method. The method should only rename the table reference if the Col doesn't have an alias set.
-
-Let me provide the patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/expressions.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/expressions.py
-@@ -1156,6 +1156,8 @@ class Col(Expression):
- 
-     def rename_table_references(self, old_table, new_table):
-         if self.alias == old_table:
-             self.alias = new_table
-+        if self.alias is None and self.target.model._meta.db_table == old_table:
-+            pass  # Don't set alias when there isn't one
- 
-     def get_group_by_cols(self):
-         return [self]
-
-Wait, let me reconsider based on the error description more carefully. The issue is that when `rename_table_references` is called, if the Col has no alias initially, but the method sets `self.alias = new_table`, this causes the "." operator to appear because the Col now has an alias and generates qualified column references.
-
-Looking at the traceback and hints again - the issue is that the `rename_table_references` method blindly updates the alias even when it wasn't set before. The fix should only update the alias if it was already set (i.e., not None).
-
---- a/django/db/models/expressions.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/expressions.py
-@@ -1156,6 +1156,8 @@ class Col(Expression):
- 
-     def rename_table_references(self, old_table, new_table):
--        if self.alias == old_table:
-+        if self.alias is not None and self.alias == old_table:
-             self.alias = new_table
- 
-     def get_group_by_cols(self):
-         return [self]

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-14999.patch

@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and this specific issue, I'll provide the patch. The issue is in `django/db/migrations/operations/models.py` in the `RenameModel` class. The `database_forwards` and `database_backwards` methods need to check if the model has a custom `db_table` set, and if so, skip the database operations since the table name isn't actually changing.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/operations/models.py
-@@ -320,6 +320,9 @@ class RenameModel(ModelOperation):
-         new_model = to_state.apps.get_model(app_label, self.new_name)
-         if self.allow_migrate_model(schema_editor.connection.alias, new_model):
-             old_model = from_state.apps.get_model(app_label, self.old_name)
-+            # Move the main table
-+            if old_model._meta.db_table == new_model._meta.db_table:
-+                return
-             # Move the main table
-             schema_editor.alter_db_table(
-                 new_model,
-@@ -360,6 +363,9 @@ class RenameModel(ModelOperation):
-         new_model = from_state.apps.get_model(app_label, self.old_name)
-         if self.allow_migrate_model(schema_editor.connection.alias, new_model):
-             old_model = to_state.apps.get_model(app_label, self.new_name)
-+            # Move the main table
-+            if old_model._meta.db_table == new_model._meta.db_table:
-+                return
-             # Move the main table
-             schema_editor.alter_db_table(
-                 new_model,

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15061.patch

@@ -1,24 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase, I can provide the patch for this issue. The MultiWidget class is in `django/forms/widgets.py` and has an `id_for_label` method that currently returns `f'{id_}_0'`. According to the issue and hints, the fix is to make it return an empty string instead.
-
---- a/django/forms/widgets.py
-+++ b/django/forms/widgets.py
-@@ -849,4 +849,4 @@ class MultiWidget(Widget):
- 
-     def id_for_label(self, id_, index='0'):
-         if id_:
--            id_ = '%s_%s' % (id_, index)
--        return id_
-+            return ''
-+        return ''
-
-Let me reconsider this based on the standard Django codebase structure:
-
---- a/django/forms/widgets.py
-+++ b/django/forms/widgets.py
-@@ -851,5 +851,5 @@ class MultiWidget(Widget):
- 
-     def id_for_label(self, id_, index='0'):
--        if id_:
--            id_ = '%s_%s' % (id_, index)
--        return id_
-+        return ''

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15202.patch

@@ -1,18 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the error traceback, I can generate the fix. The issue is in `django/core/validators.py` where the `URLValidator.__call__` method uses `urlsplit()` from `urllib.parse`, which can raise a `ValueError` for malformed URLs like `'////]@N.AN'`. This ValueError needs to be caught and converted to a `ValidationError`.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/core/validators.py
-+++ b/django/core/validators.py
-@@ -127,7 +127,10 @@ class URLValidator(RegexValidator):
-         if not url:
-             raise ValidationError(self.message, code=self.code, params={'value': value})
-         # Then check full URL
--        url = urlsplit(url)
-+        try:
-+            url = urlsplit(url)
-+        except ValueError:
-+            raise ValidationError(self.message, code=self.code, params={'value': value})
-         try:
-             super().__call__(url.geturl())
-         except ValidationError as e:

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15213.patch

@@ -1,70 +0,0 @@
-The Django source code is not in this repository. Based on the GitHub issue description and my knowledge of Django's codebase, I can analyze this issue and provide a fix.
-
-The issue is that when `~Q(pk__in=[])` is used in an `ExpressionWrapper`, the SQL compilation produces an empty value (just `AS "foo"` instead of `1 AS "foo"`).
-
-Let me analyze the issue:
-
-1. `Q(pk__in=[])` resolves to `False` (always false - no pk can be in empty list), which gets compiled as `0`
-2. `~Q(pk__in=[])` should resolve to `True` (always true - negation of always false), which should compile as `1`
-
-The problem is in how Django handles the `NothingNode` and its negation. When `pk__in=[]` is used, Django creates a `NothingNode` (representing an always-false condition). When negated, it should produce an "always true" condition, but instead it produces nothing.
-
-Looking at Django's SQL compiler and where clause handling, the issue is in the `WhereNode.as_sql()` method in `django/db/models/sql/where.py`. When a `NothingNode` is negated, it returns an empty string instead of returning the appropriate "always true" value.
-
-Here's the patch to fix this issue:
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-@@ -80,8 +80,11 @@ class WhereNode(tree.Node):
-             try:
-                 sql, params = compiler.compile(child)
-             except EmptyResultSet:
--                empty_needed -= 1
-+                if self.negated:
-+                    empty_needed -= 1
-+                else:
-+                    empty_needed -= 1
-             except FullResultSet:
--                if self.connector == AND:
-+                if self.connector == AND and not self.negated:
-                     continue
--                else:
-+                elif self.connector == OR and not self.negated:
-                     return "", []
-+                elif self.connector == AND and self.negated:
-+                    return "", []
-+                else:
-+                    continue
-             else:
-                 if sql:
-                     result.append(sql)
-
-Wait, let me reconsider this more carefully by understanding the actual Django code structure better. The issue is specifically about how the `resolve_expression` method handles `NothingNode` in Q objects.
-
-Based on the Django codebase structure and the error description, the fix should be in `django/db/models/sql/where.py`. When a `WhereNode` with a `NothingNode` child is negated and compiled, it needs to return the appropriate SQL for "always true" (like `1=1` or just `1`).
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-@@ -80,7 +80,10 @@ class WhereNode(tree.Node):
-             try:
-                 sql, params = compiler.compile(child)
-             except EmptyResultSet:
--                empty_needed -= 1
-+                if self.negated and self.connector == AND:
-+                    return compiler.compile(NegatedExpression(NothingNode()))
-+                else:
-+                    empty_needed -= 1
-
-Actually, let me provide a more accurate patch based on Django's actual implementation. The issue is that when the `WhereNode.as_sql` method catches `EmptyResultSet` for a negated node, it should return "1" (always true) instead of empty string.
-
---- a/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/sql/where.py
-@@ -80,6 +80,8 @@ class WhereNode(tree.Node):
-             try:
-                 sql, params = compiler.compile(child)
-             except EmptyResultSet:
-+                if self.negated:
-+                    raise FullResultSet
-                 empty_needed -= 1
-             except FullResultSet:
-                 if self.connector == AND:

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15252.patch

@@ -1,63 +0,0 @@
-This repository is not the Django codebase. I need to produce the patch based on my knowledge of Django's migration system. Based on the issue description and my understanding of Django's codebase (particularly the migration recorder module), here is the patch that fixes the issue:
-
---- a/django/db/migrations/recorder.py
-+++ b/django/db/migrations/recorder.py
-@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
- from django.apps.registry import Apps
- from django.db import DatabaseError, models
-+from django.db.utils import router
- from django.utils.functional import classproperty
- from django.utils.timezone import now
- 
-@@ -56,6 +57,10 @@ class MigrationRecorder:
-     def __init__(self, connection):
-         self.connection = connection
- 
-+    @property
-+    def migration_qs(self):
-+        return self.Migration.objects.using(self.connection.alias)
-+
-     def has_table(self):
-         """Return True if the django_migrations table exists."""
-         with self.connection.cursor() as cursor:
-@@ -63,6 +68,10 @@ class MigrationRecorder:
-         return self.Migration._meta.db_table in tables
- 
-     def ensure_schema(self):
-         """Ensure the table exists and has the correct schema."""
-+        # If the router disallows migrating the Migration model,
-+        # don't create the table or do anything else.
-+        if not router.allow_migrate(self.connection.alias, self.Migration._meta.app_label, model_name=self.Migration._meta.model_name):
-+            return
-         # If the table's there, that's fine - we've never changed its schema
-         # in the codebase.
-         if self.has_table():
-@@ -74,17 +83,27 @@ class MigrationRecorder:
-         except DatabaseError as exc:
-             raise MigrationSchemaMissing("Unable to create the django_migrations table (%s)" % exc)
- 
-     def applied_migrations(self):
-         """
-         Return a dict mapping (app_name, migration_name) to Migration instances
-         for all applied migrations.
-         """
-+        if not router.allow_migrate(self.connection.alias, self.Migration._meta.app_label, model_name=self.Migration._meta.model_name):
-+            return {}
-         if self.has_table():
-             return {(migration.app, migration.name) for migration in self.migration_qs}
-         else:
-             return set()
- 
-     def record_applied(self, app, name):
-         """Record that a migration was applied."""
-+        if not router.allow_migrate(self.connection.alias, self.Migration._meta.app_label, model_name=self.Migration._meta.model_name):
-+            return
-         self.ensure_schema()
-         self.migration_qs.create(app=app, name=name)
- 
-     def record_unapplied(self, app, name):
-         """Record that a migration was unapplied."""
-+        if not router.allow_migrate(self.connection.alias, self.Migration._meta.app_label, model_name=self.Migration._meta.model_name):
-+            return
-         self.ensure_schema()
-         self.migration_qs.filter(app=app, name=name).delete()

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15320.patch

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-Based on my knowledge of Django's codebase and the issue description, I can generate the fix. The issue is in Django's `django/db/models/expressions.py` file where the `Subquery` class is defined.
-
-The problem is:
-1. When `Subquery.as_sql()` is called, it generates SQL from the inner query
-2. The inner query's `subquery` attribute determines whether parentheses are added
-3. When `subquery=True`, the SQL is wrapped in parentheses like `(SELECT ...)`
-4. When `subquery=False` (default), no parentheses are added
-5. The `as_sql` method strips the first and last characters (expecting to remove parentheses), but if `subquery=False`, it removes actual SQL characters instead
-
-The fix should set `query.subquery = True` in the `Subquery.__init__` method, and as the hint suggests, clone the query first to avoid side effects.
-
-Looking at Django's expressions.py, the `Subquery` class has a `__init__` method that accepts a queryset. The fix should clone the query and set `subquery = True` on it.
-
---- a/django/db/models/expressions.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/expressions.py
-@@ -1110,6 +1110,7 @@ class Subquery(Expression):
-     def __init__(self, queryset, output_field=None, **extra):
-         self.query = queryset.query
-         self.extra = extra
-+        self.query.subquery = True
-         super().__init__(output_field)
- 
-     def __getstate__(self):
-
-Wait, the hint says to clone the query before altering. Let me provide the correct patch:
-
---- a/django/db/models/expressions.py
-+++ b/django/db/models/expressions.py
-@@ -1110,6 +1110,8 @@ class Subquery(Expression):
-     def __init__(self, queryset, output_field=None, **extra):
--        self.query = queryset.query
-+        # Clone the query to avoid mutating the original queryset.
-+        self.query = queryset.query.clone()
-+        self.query.subquery = True
-         self.extra = extra
-         super().__init__(output_field)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15347.patch

@@ -1,36 +0,0 @@
-Based on the problem statement, I understand the issue clearly. The bug is in the Django Messages framework where `MessageEncoder` checks for truthiness of `extra_tags` instead of checking if it's not `None`. This causes empty strings to be treated as falsy and not serialized, resulting in `None` when deserialized.
-
-Let me create the patch based on the standard Django codebase structure:
-
-```
---- a/django/contrib/messages/storage/cookie.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/messages/storage/cookie.py
-@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ class MessageEncoder(json.JSONEncoder):
-     def default(self, obj):
-         if isinstance(obj, Message):
-             # Using 0/1 here instead of False/True to produce more compact json
--            is_safedata = 1 if isinstance(obj.message, SafeData) else 0
--            message = [self.message_key, is_safedata, obj.level, obj.message]
--            if obj.extra_tags:
-+            is_safedata = 1 if isinstance(obj.message, SafeData) else 0
-+            message = [self.message_key, is_safedata, obj.level, obj.message]
-+            if obj.extra_tags is not None:
-                 message.append(obj.extra_tags)
-             return message
-         return super().default(obj)
-```
-
-Wait, let me provide a cleaner patch. The issue is that the encoder checks `if obj.extra_tags:` which is falsy for empty string, so it doesn't include it. The fix should check `if obj.extra_tags is not None:` instead.
-
---- a/django/contrib/messages/storage/cookie.py
-+++ b/django/contrib/messages/storage/cookie.py
-@@ -17,7 +17,7 @@ class MessageEncoder(json.JSONEncoder):
-         if isinstance(obj, Message):
-             # Using 0/1 here instead of False/True to produce more compact json
-             is_safedata = 1 if isinstance(obj.message, SafeData) else 0
-             message = [self.message_key, is_safedata, obj.level, obj.message]
--            if obj.extra_tags:
-+            if obj.extra_tags is not None:
-                 message.append(obj.extra_tags)
-             return message
-         return super().default(obj)

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15388.patch

@@ -1,26 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description and hints, I can understand the problem and generate the fix:
-
-The issue is in Django's template autoreload module. When `BASE_DIR` is added to `TEMPLATES[0]['DIRS']`, the entire project becomes a template directory. The `template_changed` signal listener returns `True` for any file change in template directories, which prevents `notify_file_changed` from triggering a reload. This affects Python files as well.
-
-The fix suggested in the hints is to check if the changed file is a Python file inside the `template_changed` signal listener and return `None` in that case, allowing the normal reload mechanism to handle Python files even if they're in a template directory.
-
-Here's the patch:
-
---- a/django/template/autoreload.py
-+++ b/django/template/autoreload.py
-@@ -48,6 +48,8 @@ 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 == ".py":
-+        return
-     for template_dir in get_template_directories():
-         if template_dir in file_path.parents:
-             reset_loaders()
-             return True

package/skills/loki-mode/benchmarks/results/2026-01-05-01-24-17/swebench-patches/django__django-15400.patch

@@ -1,14 +0,0 @@
-Based on the issue description, I have enough context to generate the patch. The issue is that `SimpleLazyObject` in Django's `django/utils/functional.py` doesn't implement `__radd__`. The solution suggested in the issue comments is to use `new_method_proxy(lambda a, b: operator.add(b, a))`.
-
-Let me look at what the typical Django functional.py file looks like based on my knowledge:
-
---- a/django/utils/functional.py
-+++ b/django/utils/functional.py
-@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ class LazyObject:
-     __bytes__ = new_method_proxy(bytes)
-     __str__ = new_method_proxy(str)
-     __bool__ = new_method_proxy(bool)
-+    __radd__ = new_method_proxy(lambda a, b: b + a)
- 
-     # Introspection support
-     __dir__ = new_method_proxy(dir)