Explanation: The patch directly addresses the root cause by fixing the `_cstack` function to properly handle nested CompoundModels. The core issue was that the code was assigning a scalar value `1` instead of the actual `right` matrix, which caused incorrect separability calculations. This fix ensures nested models maintain their proper separability structure.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the core issue, it lacks comprehensive edge case testing and proper error handling. The added test files are basic verification scripts rather than formal unit tests. There's no handling for malformed inputs or unusual model combinations, and the fix doesn't cover all possible nesting scenarios.

Explanation: The code change itself is minimal and correct, but the overall implementation quality is poor. The patch includes excessive test files with debug prints and redundant imports. The code structure is messy with multiple test scripts that don't follow standard testing conventions. Style issues include trailing whitespace and inconsistent formatting.

Explanation: The change is scoped to a single function and appears safe from breaking existing functionality. However, the extensive test suite added makes it unclear whether the change actually preserves all existing behavior. The modification affects how coordinate matrices are stacked, which could potentially impact other parts of the separability system.

Explanation: While the core fix is correct and addresses the reported issue, the patch is not ready for merging due to poor code quality, lack of proper testing framework integration, and excessive test files that don't follow project conventions. A senior engineer would likely request significant revisions before approval.


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the formatting issue in HTML output but introduces overly complex logic that doesn't properly solve the root cause. The reference gold patch shows a much simpler and correct approach by just calling `self.data._set_col_formats()` after setting up fill values. The AI patch overcomplicates the solution with multiple loops and column manipulations that aren't needed.

Doesn't follow reference gold patch approach

Explanation: The patch includes additional test files but fails to handle edge cases like multi-column tables properly. The implementation doesn't account for all possible column formats and lacks proper error handling. The test coverage is basic and doesn't cover failure modes or boundary conditions.

Incomplete edge case handling
No error handling
Basic test coverage

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive complexity, redundant operations, and unclear variable naming. The patch introduces unnecessary column manipulation loops and temporary format assignments that make the code harder to understand. There are also style violations like trailing whitespace and duplicated imports.

Excessive complexity
Poor variable naming
Style violations
Duplicated imports

Explanation: The change scope is too broad and modifies core HTML writing logic in ways that could break existing functionality. The patch introduces new code paths that weren't in the original implementation and could affect other table formats or edge cases. The risk of breaking existing HTML output is significant.

Broad scope changes
Introduces new code paths
Potential regression risk

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It represents a fundamentally flawed approach to solving the problem, with overly complex code that doesn't match the project's patterns. The reference gold patch demonstrates a much cleaner, more maintainable solution. The patch would require substantial rework to be acceptable.

Fundamentally flawed approach
Requires major rework
Doesn't meet project standards


Explanation: The patch addresses the symptom rather than the root cause. It introduces precomputation of dropped world values but doesn't fundamentally fix the underlying WCS API inconsistency. The reference patch correctly identifies that the issue stems from using `1.` instead of proper world coordinates for dropped dimensions, which the AI patch attempts to solve but with more complex machinery.

Explanation: Includes basic error handling for index bounds but lacks comprehensive edge case coverage. Doesn't handle potential issues with caching invalidation or multiple slicing operations. The test script is helpful but doesn't cover all possible slicing scenarios or boundary conditions.

Explanation: Code is functional but overly complex for the problem. Introduces unnecessary attribute caching and additional indexing logic. The solution is less clear than the reference patch which uses a simple direct approach. Variable names are descriptive but could be more concise.

Explanation: The change modifies core WCS functionality and introduces new attributes that could potentially conflict with existing code paths. The addition of a hardcoded version requirement in pyproject.toml is concerning and could introduce compatibility issues. The scope is significant enough to risk breaking other WCS consumers.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the reported issue, it does so with an unnecessarily complex approach that introduces potential maintenance burden and risks. The reference patch is cleaner, simpler, and more maintainable. Would require substantial rework before consideration for merging.


Explanation: The patch addresses the immediate IndexError by checking if args is non-empty before accessing args[0]. This fixes the specific crash described in the issue. However, it doesn't address the root cause of why identify_format is being called with empty args in the first place, which suggests a deeper architectural issue in how the registry system handles format identification.

Explanation: The patch adds some basic error handling and includes a comprehensive test suite that covers multiple scenarios. However, it only fixes two functions (is_fits, is_votable) rather than addressing all potential locations where similar issues might occur. The test coverage, while extensive, focuses mainly on the symptom rather than the underlying problem.

Explanation: The code follows basic Python conventions with the addition of the args and check. However, the implementation is somewhat ad-hoc and doesn't integrate well with the existing codebase patterns. The test file contains redundant imports and repetitive code structure that could be improved.

Explanation: The change is minimal and targeted to specific functions, reducing risk of breaking unrelated functionality. However, modifying core registry behavior could potentially affect other parts of the IO system that rely on these functions. The patch also introduces a new test file which increases the overall surface area.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the immediate crash, it's more of a bandaid solution that doesn't address the fundamental design issue. The extensive test suite is commendable but the patch itself is not production-ready due to its incomplete nature and lack of integration with the broader codebase architecture. A senior engineer would likely request significant improvements.


Explanation: The patch attempts to fix the unit parsing issue but introduces a fundamentally flawed approach by adding a new grammar rule 'denominator_units' that doesn't align with the actual problem. The real issue is the order of operations in division parsing, which the reference patch correctly addresses by swapping the production rule order. This patch creates unnecessary complexity and doesn't properly solve the root cause.

Flawed grammar approach
Doesn't address root cause properly

Explanation: The patch includes extensive test files and debugging utilities, but these are mostly for verification rather than solving the core issue. It lacks proper edge case handling for complex unit expressions and doesn't cover all possible CDS unit formats. The added test cases are helpful but don't comprehensively validate the fix.

Missing comprehensive edge case coverage

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to introducing unnecessary complexity with the new 'denominator_units' rule that makes the grammar harder to understand. There are numerous style violations including long lines, trailing whitespace, and mixed indentation. The approach contradicts established patterns in the codebase and makes the parser less maintainable.

Style violations
Unnecessary complexity
Poor maintainability

Explanation: The change scope is excessive with many modified files and lines added. While it modifies core parsing logic, the approach is fundamentally flawed and could introduce more bugs than it fixes. The addition of generated parser tables and extensive test files increases risk of breaking existing functionality without clear benefit.

Excessive scope
Unstable grammar changes
High risk of regression

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It represents a fundamentally incorrect approach to fixing the parsing issue, introduces unnecessary complexity, and has poor code quality. The reference patch demonstrates a much cleaner, more targeted solution that directly addresses the grammar ambiguity. This patch would likely break existing functionality and should be completely rewritten.

Fundamentally flawed approach
Poor code quality
Should not be merged


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by using Python's default string representation first, which avoids unnecessary precision expansion. However, it's overly complex and doesn't fully match the elegant simplicity of the reference patch. The fix works for the specific example but may miss some edge cases in the more elaborate logic.

overly complex implementation
may not cover all edge cases

Explanation: Includes comprehensive test cases covering the main issue and several edge cases. However, lacks proper handling of boundary conditions like very long scientific notation strings and doesn't adequately test all possible float representations that could cause issues.

incomplete edge case coverage
missing boundary condition testing

Explanation: The implementation is unnecessarily complex with multiple conditional branches and redundant logic. It duplicates much of the original function's behavior while adding new complexity. The code structure makes it harder to understand and maintain compared to the reference solution.

unnecessary complexity
redundant logic
poor readability

Explanation: The change modifies core formatting logic which could affect many parts of the FITS system. While it attempts to be conservative, the extensive reworking increases risk of breaking existing functionality. The patch touches the core _format_float function which is widely used.

high-risk modification of core function
untested edge cases

Explanation: This patch fails to deliver a clean, minimal solution to the problem. It's over-engineered and introduces unnecessary complexity while potentially introducing subtle bugs. The reference patch is superior in both correctness and simplicity. This would not be approved by a senior engineer as-is.

reject due to poor design
overcomplicated solution
insufficient review of edge cases


Explanation: The patch correctly identifies that the issue stems from improper handling of VLAs, specifically the 'Q' format which represents variable-length arrays. Adding 'Q' to the condition alongside 'P' addresses the root cause mentioned in the issue. However, the fix is narrowly focused on the specific symptom rather than addressing potential deeper issues in VLA comparison logic.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the immediate issue with 'Q' format VLAs, it doesn't comprehensively handle all possible VLA formats or edge cases. The test suite adds some coverage but lacks thorough edge case testing for various VLA configurations and boundary conditions.

Explanation: The code change itself is minimal and follows the existing pattern. However, the patch includes excessive test files with redundant code and debug scripts that clutter the commit. There are also trailing whitespace issues and inconsistent formatting that reduce quality.

Explanation: The change is small and targeted, modifying only the specific condition that was causing false positives. However, the addition of multiple test files and debug scripts increases the risk of introducing unintended side effects during review and could mask real issues in the core logic.

Explanation: The core fix is correct and addresses the stated issue, but the patch suffers from poor organization with excessive test files and debug code. The change itself is minimal and safe, but the overall quality and structure make it unsuitable for merging as-is. A senior engineer would likely request significant cleanup before approval.


Explanation: The patch addresses the immediate symptom by adding a check for None masks, but doesn't fully address the root cause. The logic is flawed because it handles the case where either mask is None, but the original issue occurs when trying to perform bitwise_or between an integer and None. The human patch correctly identifies that when operand.mask is None, we should return a copy of self.mask, which is the proper fix.

Explanation: The patch adds some edge case handling but misses the core issue. It doesn't properly handle all combinations of None vs non-None masks. The test coverage is minimal and doesn't cover the full range of operations mentioned in the issue. There's no handling for other mask operations beyond bitwise_or.

Explanation: Code structure is readable but has redundant conditions. The logic flow is confusing with multiple nested if statements. The human patch is cleaner and more direct. There are style issues like trailing whitespace and the addition of unnecessary debug prints in test files.

Explanation: The change modifies core mask handling logic which could affect other operations. While it fixes the specific reported issue, the approach of checking for None masks in both operands creates potential for new edge case failures. The scope is moderate but affects fundamental arithmetic operations.

Explanation: This patch would not be approved by a senior engineer. It provides a band-aid fix rather than addressing the actual root cause. The logic is overly complex and introduces potential for regressions. A proper fix should follow the human patch approach which directly addresses the condition where operand.mask is None.


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by changing the default FILE_UPLOAD_PERMISSIONS from None to 0o644 in global_settings.py. This directly resolves the inconsistency issue described where files created via tempfile.NamedTemporaryFile + os.rename would have 0o0600 permissions on some systems. The fix ensures consistent 0o644 permissions regardless of upload handler used.

Explanation: While the core fix is correct, the patch includes excessive test code that goes beyond what's needed for the simple configuration change. The test suite adds significant complexity with multiple test functions and a reproduction script that isn't necessary for verifying the basic change. There's no handling of edge cases around permission inheritance or special filesystem scenarios.

Unnecessary reproduction script included

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to several issues: excessive whitespace, long lines, debug print statements, and overly verbose test code. The patch introduces a large test script with hardcoded values and debug output that makes it hard to read. The actual fix itself is minimal and correct, but the surrounding code quality is very low.

Trailing whitespace violations
Line too long violations
Debug print statements present
Poor code organization

Explanation: The change is scoped appropriately to just one line in global_settings.py which is the correct place for this default. However, changing the default permission from None to 0o644 could potentially affect existing applications that rely on the previous behavior, though this is likely an improvement rather than a breaking change.

Default behavior change may impact existing apps

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. While the core fix is correct, it's burdened with excessive test code and poor code quality. The addition of a 150-line reproduction script and verbose test suite makes this patch unwieldy. A proper patch would only include the single line change plus minimal regression tests, not an entire test suite and reproduction script.

Overly complex test additions
Poor code quality standards
Unnecessary reproduction script


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by replacing the complex temporary .pgpass file mechanism with direct PGPASSWORD environment variable setting using subprocess.run. This simplifies the code and aligns with the issue description. The change properly handles the password authentication scenario described.

Explanation: While the patch implements the core functionality, it lacks proper error handling for edge cases like Unicode encoding issues that were previously handled in the original code. It also doesn't maintain backward compatibility with the fallback behavior when UnicodeEncodeError occurs. The cleanup of temporary files and environment variables is simplified but potentially less robust.

missing error handling
loss of fallback behavior

Explanation: The code quality is good overall with cleaner, more readable implementation. The use of subprocess.run with explicit env parameter improves clarity. However, the variable naming could be more consistent ('subprocess_env' vs 'env') and the removal of the helper function _escape_pgpass reduces some code reuse that might have been useful elsewhere.

variable naming inconsistency
removed reusable helper

Explanation: The change has moderate risk due to removing the temporary file creation and cleanup logic which could impact edge cases involving special characters in passwords. The modification affects the signal handling and environment setup, though it maintains the same public interface. The risk is manageable but requires careful testing across different environments.

removes error recovery path
changes signal handling approach

Explanation: This patch would likely require significant revisions before merging. While it correctly implements the core idea from the issue, it sacrifices robustness by removing important error handling and fallback mechanisms. A senior engineer would want to see improved error handling and possibly restoration of the Unicode encoding fallback behavior before approval.

insufficient error handling
regression risk


Explanation: The patch directly addresses the root cause by ensuring content_type.save() uses the correct database via the 'using=db' parameter. This fixes the specific issue where database routing was ignored despite the transaction.atomic(using=db) context. The fix is minimal and targeted to the exact problem described.

Explanation: While the core fix is correct, the patch includes extensive test code that goes beyond what's needed for the simple bug fix. The test suite adds significant complexity and may not be necessary for the core issue. However, it does demonstrate the fix works in a multi-database scenario.

overly extensive test suite
test code exceeds minimal requirement

Explanation: The code change follows Django's existing patterns and style perfectly. It's a one-line fix that's clear and concise. The reference patch shows identical quality. Minor style issues like trailing whitespace exist but don't impact correctness.

trailing whitespace issues
line too long violations

Explanation: The change is extremely minimal and surgical - only adding the 'using=db' parameter to an existing save() call. It doesn't alter any interfaces or modify core behavior beyond fixing the database routing. The transaction.atomic(using=db) context already provides the correct database context, so this ensures the save operation respects it.

Explanation: This is a solid, correct fix that addresses the exact issue described. The core change is excellent and ready for production. However, the excessive test code included makes it less ideal for merging as-is - a simpler reproduction test would be more appropriate. Overall, a strong candidate for approval with minor cleanup.

excessive test code included
test suite overkill for bug fix


Explanation: The patch correctly implements the requested `get_inlines()` hook by replacing the direct use of `self.inlines` with `self.get_inlines(request, obj)` in `get_inline_instances`. This addresses the core issue of allowing dynamic inlines based on request or model instance. However, it doesn't fully align with the reference gold patch which includes proper parameter handling for `obj` (as `obj=None` vs `obj`), making it slightly less robust.

Parameter mismatch in signature compared to reference

Missing explicit handling of obj=None case

Explanation: The patch handles the basic functionality but lacks comprehensive edge case handling. It does not account for potential None values in `obj`, nor does it include any validation or error handling around the returned inlines list. The implementation assumes all returned inline classes are valid, without checking their compatibility or permissions.

Doesn't handle edge cases like empty inlines list

Missing documentation about expected return type

Explanation: The code follows Django's existing patterns and style well. The addition of the new method is clean and consistent with how other hooks like `get_fieldsets` are implemented. The change is minimal and focused, maintaining readability. However, the docstring could be more descriptive to match Django's standards.

Minor stylistic inconsistency with reference patch

Explanation: The change has minimal scope and only affects one internal method call within `get_inline_instances`. It maintains backward compatibility since the default implementation returns `self.inlines`, so existing code will continue working unchanged. The modification is surgical and unlikely to break unrelated functionality.

Low risk of breaking existing behavior
Maintains backward compatibility

Explanation: While the patch technically works and addresses the core issue, it falls short of production-ready quality. It lacks proper edge case handling, has a minor discrepancy with the reference implementation, and doesn't fully meet Django's coding standards. A senior engineer would likely request improvements before merging, particularly around parameter consistency and robustness.

Should match reference implementation exactly


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by changing from `$` to `\Z` which prevents matching trailing newlines. However, it uses `\A\Z` instead of `^\Z` as suggested in the issue description, which is functionally equivalent but not exactly what was specified. The fix is conceptually correct but not precisely aligned with the issue's recommendation.

Explanation: The patch handles the specific issue of trailing newlines in usernames. It covers both validators as required. However, it doesn't address potential edge cases like multiple trailing newlines or other whitespace characters that might be problematic. No additional error handling or edge case management is included.

Explanation: The change is minimal, focused, and follows Django's existing patterns. The code is clean and readable. Uses proper Python regex syntax and maintains consistency with the existing codebase structure. No style violations or complexity issues introduced.

Explanation: The change is very localized and affects only the regex pattern used for validation. It's unlikely to break existing functionality since it only makes validation stricter. The interface remains unchanged and the modification is backward compatible in terms of valid inputs.

Explanation: While the patch correctly identifies and addresses the security issue, it doesn't fully align with the reference gold patch and contains a minor deviation from the exact solution suggested in the issue. The change is small and safe but lacks precision in implementation. Would benefit from being reviewed by a senior engineer before merging.


Explanation: The patch does not actually contain the fix - it only adds comprehensive test files that verify the behavior. The core issue is that Engine.render_to_string() creates a Context without passing the engine's autoescape setting, but no actual code change is present in the diff. The reference gold patch shows exactly what needs to be fixed in the engine.py file.

No functional code change
Patch contains only tests, not the fix

Explanation: The test suite is thorough and covers multiple scenarios including edge cases like Context object pass-through. However, it doesn't actually test the fix itself since the fix isn't implemented in the provided diff. The tests validate the expected behavior but can't confirm the fix works without the actual code change.

Missing validation of the core issue resolution

Explanation: The test code quality is decent - well-structured with clear test cases and good error handling. However, it suffers from significant redundancy (multiple identical imports, duplicated test functions), and has trailing whitespace issues. The test files are overly verbose and could be more concise.

Redundant imports
Duplicated test functions
Trailing whitespace

Explanation: Since the patch doesn't actually implement the fix, there's no risk of breaking existing functionality from the change itself. However, the patch is fundamentally incomplete - it provides no actual code change to address the reported issue. The risk is that developers might think the fix is implemented when it's not.

Incomplete implementation
No actual code change

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright. It provides no actual fix to the issue described - only test files that cannot validate the non-existent fix. The patch is essentially useless as presented and would confuse anyone trying to understand the actual problem. A proper fix would require modifying the engine.py file as shown in the reference patch.

Reject - no functional change
Provides no actual solution
Misleading patch content


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by adding memoryview handling in the `make_bytes` method. It transforms memoryview objects to bytes before processing, which resolves the core issue where memoryviews were being converted to their string representation instead of their byte content. The fix aligns with the reference gold patch approach.

Explanation: The patch includes comprehensive test coverage with multiple test scripts covering basic functionality, edge cases, and charset handling. However, it lacks integration with Django's official test suite and doesn't cover all possible memoryview scenarios (like views of arrays, sliced memoryviews). The test scripts are overly verbose and include setup code duplication.

Overly verbose test scripts
No integration with Django's test suite

Explanation: The core code change is minimal and follows the existing pattern correctly. However, the patch introduces excessive test files with duplicated setup code, poor structure, and debug-style print statements. The implementation itself is correct but the surrounding test infrastructure is poorly organized and violates Django's testing conventions.

Poor test organization
Duplicated setup code
Debug print statements in test files

Explanation: The change is surgical and only affects the specific problematic code path. It modifies exactly one method in HttpResponseBase to handle memoryviews properly without changing any public APIs or breaking existing behavior. The approach mirrors the reference gold patch which is the established solution.

Explanation: While the core fix is correct and addresses the issue, the patch fails to meet merge standards due to poor test organization, excessive verbosity, and lack of integration with Django's testing framework. The test files are not suitable for inclusion in the main codebase and would require significant refactoring before being acceptable.

Inappropriate test file structure
Not ready for production inclusion
Excessive verbosity in test scripts


Explanation: The patch correctly removes the problematic `__file__` check that prevented namespace packages from working, addressing the root cause. However, it introduces a new logic flow that could be more robust by considering the `ignore_no_migrations` flag like the reference patch does. The core issue is resolved but not optimally.

logic change may miss ignore_no_migrations flag

Explanation: The patch handles the main case of namespace packages but lacks proper edge case handling for various migration states. It doesn't consider scenarios like empty migration directories or mixed package types. The test script is overly complex and includes redundant code rather than focusing on minimal reproduction.

missing edge case handling
overly complex test script

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive duplication in the test script, presence of debug prints, and style violations. The core logic change is acceptable but the implementation is messy. The test file contains hardcoded values and multiple redundant classes that make it hard to read and maintain.

style violations
debug statements
hardcoded values

Explanation: The change modifies core migration loading logic which could affect many code paths. While it fixes the namespace package issue, the altered logic flow might introduce subtle regressions in how apps without migrations are handled. The removal of the original check is correct but the replacement logic isn't as carefully considered as the reference patch.

core logic modification
potential regression risk

Explanation: This patch would not be approved as-is. It fixes the core issue but with poor code quality, incomplete edge case handling, and unnecessary complexity in the test script. The reference patch is cleaner and more complete. A senior engineer would require significant revisions before approval.

poor code quality
incomplete test coverage
not production ready


Explanation: The patch directly addresses the root cause by changing the condition from `if fields and f.name not in fields:` to `if fields is not None and f.name not in fields:`. This ensures that when an empty list is passed as fields, the condition evaluates to False and all fields are included, which is the expected behavior. The fix correctly handles the edge case described in the issue.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the specific issue with empty lists, it doesn't handle other potential edge cases like None values or invalid field names. The reproduction script is minimal and doesn't cover comprehensive testing scenarios. There's no additional error handling or validation added beyond the core fix.

Explanation: The code change is minimal, precise, and follows existing code style perfectly. The modification is exactly what's needed without introducing any complexity. The logic is clear and readable, maintaining consistency with the existing codebase patterns.

Explanation: The change is very localized and only affects the specific conditional check. It shouldn't break existing functionality since it only changes behavior for the edge case of empty lists. However, there's a slight risk that some code might have been relying on the buggy behavior, though that would be unexpected usage.

Explanation: This is a technically correct fix that addresses the stated issue, but it's not production-ready quality. While the core logic is sound, the accompanying reproduction script is minimal and doesn't demonstrate comprehensive testing. A proper test case should be included to verify the fix works correctly. The patch would benefit from more thorough validation before merging.


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by checking if the number is smaller than a threshold based on decimal_pos and returning zeros instead of scientific notation. However, it introduces overly complex logic that duplicates existing scientific notation handling and doesn't correctly handle all edge cases like when decimal_pos is 0. The reference gold patch is much cleaner and more precise.

overly complex logic
duplicated scientific notation handling

Explanation: The patch handles some edge cases but fails to cover important scenarios like decimal_pos=0 properly. It also doesn't account for negative numbers or other boundary conditions. The test script shows good coverage but the implementation itself is incomplete.

incomplete edge case handling
missing negative number support

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to duplicated logic, redundant conditionals, and overly verbose implementation. The approach contradicts the existing codebase style which favors simpler, more direct solutions. There are also style issues like trailing whitespace and unnecessary complexity.

duplicated code blocks
verbose implementation
style violations

Explanation: The change modifies core formatting logic significantly, increasing risk of breaking existing functionality. The patch introduces new conditional paths that could affect normal number formatting behavior, especially around the 200-digit cutoff boundary.

significant logic modification
high-risk boundary conditions

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It's overly complex, introduces redundancy, and fails to match the elegance and correctness of the reference solution. The gold patch demonstrates superior understanding of the problem and provides a clean, minimal fix that would be acceptable to senior engineers.

reject due to poor implementation
should use reference approach


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by fixing how GenericForeignKey compares foreign key values when the target model uses UUID fields. It correctly identifies that `get_prep_value` is inappropriate for Python object comparison and uses `to_python` instead. However, the fix is narrowly focused on one specific code path and may miss other similar issues in related methods.

May not cover all related comparison paths

Explanation: The patch includes comprehensive test coverage with multiple scenarios including UUID objects, non-existent references, and multiple objects. It handles edge cases like nonexistent UUIDs properly. However, it only fixes one location in the codebase rather than addressing potential similar issues elsewhere.

Good test coverage
Limited to single method location

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive verbosity and lack of clarity. The fix adds unnecessary complexity with redundant checks and verbose comments. The implementation is overly cautious with hasattr checks that aren't really needed. Debug print statements remain in the final version which is unacceptable.

Verbose and unclear implementation
Debug print statements present
Overly defensive coding style

Explanation: The change modifies core behavior of GenericForeignKey which could affect many applications. While limited in scope, it touches fundamental comparison logic that might impact other field types or use cases. The risk is moderate but not negligible given the nature of the change.

Potential side effects on other field types

Explanation: This patch fails multiple criteria for merge readiness. It has poor code quality with verbose implementation and debug statements. The fix is incomplete as it only addresses one location rather than the broader problem. Even though tests pass, the code quality and completeness issues make it unsuitable for production.

Poor code quality
Incomplete fix
Contains debug statements


Explanation: The patch addresses the symptom by copying annotations and filtered_relations to the new query in split_exclude, which prevents the FieldError. However, it's a superficial fix that doesn't address the deeper architectural issue of how FilteredRelation metadata is lost during query splitting. The root cause lies in the query construction logic itself, not just attribute copying.

Superficial fix addressing symptom rather than root cause

Doesn't fully resolve the underlying query building issue

Explanation: Adds tests for exclude functionality with FilteredRelation but doesn't cover all edge cases like nested excludes, complex conditions, or interactions with other query modifiers. The fix only handles the immediate problem in split_exclude but doesn't consider broader implications for query optimization or trimming logic.

Missing comprehensive test suite for complex scenarios

Doesn't address query trimming optimizations

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive debug code that shouldn't be in production, hardcoded paths, and verbose debugging output. The implementation is overly verbose with debug prints and creates unnecessary test data setup. The actual fix is minimal but embedded within bloated debug code.

Contains debug code that should be removed

Explanation: The change modifies core query building logic which could affect many query operations. While it fixes the specific issue, copying _filtered_relations might have unintended consequences for query optimization and join trimming behavior. The modification touches fundamental query construction methods.

Modifies core query building logic
Potential impact on query optimization
Risk of breaking other query features

Explanation: This patch is not ready for merging. It contains debug code, lacks proper testing structure, and provides only a partial fix to a complex architectural issue. Even though tests pass, the approach is fundamentally flawed and would require significant refactoring to be production-ready. A senior engineer would reject this patch outright.

Contains debug code that should never be merged


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by replacing Django's custom HTML escaping with Python's stdlib html.escape(), which directly solves the duplication issue mentioned in the problem description. The performance improvement is demonstrated and the core functionality is preserved.

Explanation: While the patch handles the main escape function correctly, it doesn't address the broader opportunity to use html.unescape() elsewhere in the file as shown in the reference gold patch. The test coverage is minimal and doesn't cover all edge cases like lazy strings or complex nested scenarios properly.

missing html.unescape() usage in other functions

Explanation: The code follows Django's existing patterns and style well. The change is clean and straightforward. However, there are some style violations (trailing whitespace) and the test files have poor formatting with missing newlines at end of file.

trailing whitespace violations
poor test file formatting

Explanation: The change is relatively safe for the escape function itself, but the issue mentions a backward compatibility concern about ' vs ' vs ' which isn't fully addressed. The patch also removes the unescape function without replacement, potentially affecting other parts of the codebase that might depend on it.

backward compatibility concern with quote escaping

Explanation: This patch is not ready for merging as-is. While it fixes the immediate issue, it's incomplete compared to the reference gold patch and introduces potential regressions. It lacks proper handling of the html.unescape() usage and doesn't fully address the backward compatibility concerns. A senior engineer would likely request significant changes before approval.

incomplete solution compared to gold patch


Explanation: The patch adds the --skip-checks argument to the command parser, which is part of the requested functionality. However, it doesn't actually implement the logic to skip checks in the execution flow, leaving the core issue unresolved. The reference gold patch shows that simply adding the argument is insufficient without modifying the check execution logic.

Explanation: The patch only addresses the argument definition but omits critical implementation details. It fails to update the help formatter to include the new option in the display order and doesn't modify the command execution to actually skip checks when the flag is used. There's no handling of edge cases or error conditions.

Explanation: The code follows basic formatting conventions and integrates cleanly into the existing structure. The addition is minimal and syntactically correct. However, it lacks proper conditional logic to ensure the argument is only added when needed, and doesn't consider the broader context of how stealth options work in Django.

Explanation: The change is scoped to a single file and adds a new argument without modifying core behavior. However, since it's incomplete and doesn't properly integrate with the existing system checks mechanism, it could introduce subtle issues or unexpected behavior when combined with other parts of Django's management system.

Explanation: This patch is fundamentally incomplete and would not resolve the stated issue. It provides only half of what's needed - adding the argument without implementing the actual skipping behavior. A senior engineer would reject this as it introduces a broken feature that could mislead users and potentially break existing workflows.


Explanation: The patch does not actually contain the fix for the root cause. It only provides test scripts that reproduce the issue but don't implement any code changes to resolve the problem. The issue is in how CheckConstraint SQL is generated, specifically with qualified vs unqualified column names in OR clauses, which requires modifying the query building logic.

No actual code fix provided
Only test reproduction scripts

Explanation: The test scripts cover several scenarios including simple constraints, OR constraints, and complex OR constraints, which shows good test coverage. However, they don't actually test the fix itself since no fix is implemented. The tests would pass even without the actual fix being applied.

Tests don't verify the fix
Missing edge case testing

Explanation: The test code is generally readable and follows Python conventions. It properly configures Django settings and uses appropriate imports. However, it has some style issues like trailing whitespace and lacks proper error handling in the test functions beyond basic assertions.

Trailing whitespace detected
Basic error handling only

Explanation: Since no actual code changes are made to the Django core, there's minimal risk of breaking existing functionality. However, the patch is essentially non-functional as it doesn't provide any real solution to the problem. The test-only approach makes it impossible to assess true impact.

No functional code changes
Test-only approach

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright. It provides no actual fix to the reported issue and only includes test reproduction scripts. Even if tests pass, they don't validate a working solution. A genuine fix would need to modify the query building logic in the core Django codebase, which is completely absent here.

Complete lack of functional fix
Should be rejected immediately
Doesn't address root cause


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by ensuring that get_resolver normalizes None to settings.ROOT_URLCONF before caching, preventing duplicate URLResolver constructions. However, it introduces a new function _get_resolver_cached which isn't consistent with the reference gold patch approach of renaming the cached function. The fix works for the described scenario but is not as clean as the human-written solution.

Introduces new function instead of renaming existing one

Doesn't match reference gold patch approach

Explanation: The patch handles the main caching issue but lacks comprehensive edge case testing. It doesn't cover potential issues with concurrent access or complex URL configurations. The test suite includes some validation but is limited in scope and contains debugging artifacts.

Contains debugging artifacts in test files

Missing comprehensive concurrency testing

Explanation: Code quality is subpar due to introducing unnecessary complexity with a new helper function. The naming is inconsistent with Django conventions and the approach differs significantly from the established pattern in the reference patch. The test files contain excessive debugging code and hardcoded values that reduce maintainability.

Unnecessary function introduction
Poor naming consistency
Debugging code in test files
Hardcoded values in tests

Explanation: The change modifies the core URL resolution mechanism which could impact many downstream components. While it preserves the cache_clear functionality, the approach of adding a new wrapper function rather than following the established pattern increases risk. The patch touches core URL resolution logic without full integration with existing patterns.

Core URL resolution modification
Deviation from established patterns
Potential interface inconsistency

Explanation: This patch would not be approved by a senior engineer as-is. It introduces unnecessary complexity, doesn't follow the established codebase patterns, and contains debugging artifacts. The approach differs significantly from the reference gold patch which is the correct implementation. The tests are overly complex and include debugging code that should not be in production.

Not aligned with reference implementation


Explanation: The patch correctly identifies the root cause - making unnecessary database queries when username is None. However, it only provides a test file and does not actually implement the fix in the source code. The reference gold patch shows the proper fix location in django/contrib/auth/backends.py. The test coverage demonstrates the issue but doesn't address the actual code change needed.

No actual code change implemented
Only test file provided

Explanation: The test suite covers several scenarios including None username, None password, and both being None, which is good. However, it doesn't cover all edge cases like empty string usernames, or complex kwargs scenarios. The tests are comprehensive for the stated issue but don't fully explore potential side effects or boundary conditions.

Missing validation of complex kwargs scenarios

Explanation: The test code itself is well-structured and readable with clear test cases. However, it's not production code and has some stylistic issues like trailing whitespace. The approach of using mocks to verify method calls is appropriate. But the patch fails to provide the actual source code fix that would be required.

Trailing whitespace issues
Not actual source code fix
Test-only approach

Explanation: Since this is a test-only patch without modifying core functionality, there's minimal risk of breaking existing behavior. However, the patch doesn't actually implement the fix, so it cannot be evaluated for regression risk against the real codebase. The test setup is reasonable but could be more minimal.

No actual code modification
Test setup could be simplified

Explanation: This patch is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't contain the actual code fix - it only provides tests that demonstrate the problem. A senior engineer would reject this as incomplete. The tests are valuable but insufficient on their own. The patch fails to meet basic requirements for a merge-worthy contribution.

Missing core implementation
Incomplete solution
Not ready for merging


Explanation: The patch does not actually fix the root cause. The issue is that when composing queries with union(), subsequent calls to values_list() or values() with different column sets reuse the same compiler query object, causing incorrect column selection. The proposed fix in the diff is incomplete and doesn't properly clone the query objects. The gold patch correctly identifies that cloning the compiler query resolves the issue by ensuring independent column selections.

Explanation: The patch adds test cases that reproduce the issue, which is valuable. However, it fails to address the actual problem in the compiler logic. There's no handling of edge cases like nested unions, complex queries, or different combinators. The fix is incomplete and doesn't cover all scenarios where this bug could occur.

Explanation: Code quality is poor. The patch introduces a debug script with hardcoded paths and environment setup that shouldn't be part of a production fix. The compiler modification is incomplete and introduces a syntax error in the diff. There are trailing whitespace issues and overly verbose debug output. The approach violates Django's coding conventions.

Explanation: The risk is high because the patch modifies core compiler behavior without a proper fix. The incomplete implementation could break existing functionality. The addition of debug code and test scripts increases the surface area for potential issues. The change touches fundamental query compilation logic which affects many parts of Django.

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It's fundamentally flawed - it doesn't fix the actual issue, contains incomplete code, and includes debug artifacts. Even if tests pass, they're testing the buggy behavior rather than the correct behavior. A senior engineer would reject this patch immediately due to its lack of correctness and poor implementation quality.


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the Unicode DNS issue but does so in a fragmented way across multiple test files rather than implementing the core fix in Django's mail modules. It doesn't actually modify the Django source code to handle punycode conversion at the root level. The reference gold patch shows the proper approach of modifying core mail modules to use punycode conversion systematically.

No actual source code changes to Django core

Addresses symptom rather than root cause

Explanation: The patch includes various test files and helper functions but lacks comprehensive edge case handling. It doesn't cover all potential failure modes or integrate properly with Django's existing architecture. The implementation appears incomplete and focused only on testing rather than fixing.

Missing comprehensive error handling
Incomplete integration with Django core
Only tests specific scenarios

Explanation: Code quality is poor with numerous issues: excessive use of mocking, redundant imports, inconsistent styling, debug prints, and no clear separation of concerns. The patch creates multiple test files instead of integrating with existing test suite properly. Style violations and hardcoded values are present throughout.

Style violations and trailing whitespace

Explanation: Very high risk due to lack of actual source code modifications. Since no real Django code is changed, there's no way to assess impact on existing functionality. The patch appears to be entirely test-focused rather than addressing core functionality, making it potentially dangerous to merge.

High risk of breaking existing functionality

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright. It provides no actual functional fix to Django's mail system, only test utilities that don't address the core issue. The approach is fundamentally flawed - it doesn't modify the source code that needs fixing. A senior engineer would reject this immediately as it's not a genuine solution to the reported problem.

Complete absence of actual fixes
Misunderstands the problem scope
Not a real patch to Django source


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the root cause by modifying the field lookup logic in `_check_list_display_item`, but it introduces a flawed approach that doesn't properly replicate the original Django fix. The reference patch shows the correct approach using proper exception handling instead of relying on `hasattr` checks. This patch doesn't actually implement the fix correctly.

Incorrect implementation approach
Doesn't match reference patch logic

Explanation: Includes comprehensive test cases covering various scenarios including valid callables, regular fields, missing fields, and ManyToMany fields. However, the test suite is overly complex and includes unnecessary mocking that obscures the actual fix. The edge case handling is present but not cleanly implemented.

Overly complex test suite
Unnecessary mocking

Explanation: Code structure is convoluted with multiple test files and complex setup. The main logic doesn't follow Django's established patterns and introduces redundant checks. There are style violations and the code is harder to read than necessary. The approach contradicts the reference implementation.

Poor code organization
Style violations
Redundant logic

Explanation: The patch modifies core validation logic but does so incorrectly, potentially breaking existing functionality. It doesn't align with the reference implementation and could introduce new bugs. The change scope is significant but poorly executed.

Incorrect core logic modification
Potential regression risk

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It fundamentally misunderstands the problem and implements an incorrect solution. The reference patch demonstrates the proper approach. Even if tests pass, the underlying logic is flawed and would break in real-world usage.

Fundamental implementation error
Should not be merged
Misunderstands root cause


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the issue by modifying get_order_dir to handle expression objects, but it's incomplete and incorrect. It doesn't properly handle the core problem described in the issue - that OrderBy objects in Meta.ordering cause crashes during query compilation. The fix is applied in the wrong location and doesn't address the actual root cause in the compiler.

Explanation: The patch introduces debugging code and test cases but fails to provide a complete solution. It doesn't handle all edge cases involving different types of expressions or OrderBy objects. The implementation is patchy and doesn't cover the full scope of the issue.

Explanation: Code quality is poor with multiple issues: excessive debugging code, hardcoded paths, poor error handling, and style violations. The approach is overly complex with nested conditionals and lacks proper abstraction. The patch mixes debugging/test code with actual fixes.

Explanation: The change introduces significant risk due to modifying core query processing logic in an incorrect location. It adds new code paths that could break existing functionality. The patch modifies get_order_dir which is called in many places, increasing regression potential.

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright. It's fundamentally flawed, incomplete, and introduces more problems than it solves. The approach contradicts the reference gold patch which correctly identifies the issue in compiler.py. The patch includes debugging code that shouldn't be in production and makes incorrect assumptions about how the ordering system works.


Explanation: The patch completely misses the actual issue. The issue asks to add DISTINCT support for Avg and Sum aggregates by modifying the core aggregate classes to allow DISTINCT. However, this patch only provides extensive test files that verify the behavior AFTER the change has been made, rather than implementing the actual fix. The core files are not modified at all.

Does not modify core implementation
Only adds tests, no functional change

Explanation: The test suite is comprehensive and covers many scenarios including basic functionality, SQL generation, inheritance, and verification of other aggregates. However, it fails to actually implement the required functionality. It also lacks proper error handling for the core functionality being tested.

Missing actual implementation
No edge case handling

Explanation: The test code is well-structured and readable with clear separation of concerns. It follows Python conventions and includes good documentation. However, it's entirely focused on testing rather than implementing, so quality metrics apply mainly to the test structure rather than actual code.

Good test organization
Includes debug prints
Trailing whitespace issues

Explanation: Since no actual code changes are made to the core system, there's minimal risk of breaking existing functionality. However, this also means the patch doesn't actually solve anything. The test files themselves don't introduce any regression risks but provide no value since they test non-existent functionality.

No core code changes
Tests don't validate real behavior

Explanation: This patch should be rejected immediately. It provides no actual solution to the problem described in the issue. It's essentially a test suite that verifies behavior that doesn't exist yet. A senior engineer would reject this because it's fundamentally flawed - it doesn't implement the requested feature, it only tests for it after the fact.

Fundamentally broken approach
Does not address root cause
Should be rejected outright


Explanation: The patch addresses the core issue by adding foreign key dependencies when altering fields to ForeignKey types. However, it only handles the specific case of AlterField operations and doesn't cover all possible scenarios where FK dependencies might be needed. The fix is partially correct but incomplete.

Explanation: The patch fails to handle several important edge cases including ManyToManyField dependencies, reverse foreign key relationships, and various field type transitions. It also doesn't consider the broader context of how dependencies should be managed across different migration operations beyond just AlterField.

Explanation: The code follows basic structural patterns of the existing codebase and integrates cleanly into the autodetector flow. The logic is straightforward and readable, though it could benefit from better documentation of why dependencies are being added. The placement within the method is appropriate.

Explanation: While the change is scoped to a single method, it modifies core migration generation logic which could affect other field types or operations. The patch doesn't account for all possible field relationship types, potentially causing issues with complex models or migrations involving multiple related fields.

Explanation: This patch is not ready for merging as a standalone fix. It provides a partial solution that may work in simple cases but introduces risks of breaking more complex scenarios. A proper fix would need to handle all field relationship types comprehensively and be thoroughly tested against various migration scenarios.


Explanation: The patch doesn't actually implement the fix - it only adds comprehensive test cases that demonstrate the problem. The core issue remains unresolved as no changes were made to the django/core/management/__init__.py file. The reference gold patch shows exactly what needs to be changed in the core code.

No actual code fix implemented
Only test additions provided

Explanation: The test suite is thorough and covers multiple scenarios including single and multiple mutually exclusive groups, optional groups, and subparsers. However, it fails to address the actual bug in the core implementation. The tests validate the expected behavior but don't verify the fix itself.

Missing validation of actual call_command behavior

Explanation: The test code is well-structured and readable with clear separation of concerns. It follows Python conventions and includes proper error handling. However, it suffers from some style issues like trailing whitespace and long lines as noted in the extracted features.

Trailing whitespace issues
Long lines detected

Explanation: Since no actual code changes were made to the core Django management system, there's minimal risk of breaking existing functionality. However, the patch fails to address the core issue entirely, making it essentially useless for fixing the reported problem.

No functional changes to core code
Patch doesn't address root cause

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright as it provides no actual fix to the reported issue. It's essentially a test suite that demonstrates the problem without implementing any solution. A senior engineer would reject this as it doesn't solve the stated problem and could mislead developers into thinking the issue is fixed.

Complete lack of functional fix
Misleading as a solution
Should be rejected


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by changing enum serialization from using `enum_instance(value)` to `enum_class[enum_name]`, which prevents translation issues. It properly uses the enum's name instead of its translated value, directly solving the described problem. The fix handles the core issue across all enum types (TextEnum, BinaryEnum, IntEnum) as demonstrated in tests.

Explanation: The patch handles the main use case described in the issue but lacks comprehensive edge case testing. While it modifies the serializer correctly, it doesn't account for potential issues with custom enum implementations or complex nested structures. The test coverage is good but focused narrowly on the specific reported scenario rather than broader edge cases.

Limited edge case coverage
No handling of custom enum classes

Explanation: Code quality is acceptable but has some issues. The implementation follows the basic structure of the existing codebase. However, it introduces a new test file with significant duplication and debugging output that shouldn't be in production code. The formatting is inconsistent with trailing whitespace issues and overly verbose test setup.

Debug output in test
Trailing whitespace
Verbose test setup

Explanation: The change is scoped appropriately to only affect enum serialization, which is a narrow and contained modification. However, the extensive test modifications suggest potential impact on existing behavior. The change could break migrations that depend on the old enum serialization format, though it's likely limited to very specific edge cases.

Potential migration compatibility issues

Explanation: While the core fix is correct and addresses the stated issue, the patch has several red flags that prevent merge readiness. The excessive test duplication, debug output, and formatting issues make it unprofessional. The patch also introduces a new test file with questionable practices. A senior engineer would likely request substantial revisions before approval.

Unnecessary test duplication
Debug output in production code
Formatting issues
Poor test organization


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by ensuring error_messages are properly deep-copied. However, it uses copy.deepcopy instead of the simpler self.error_messages.copy() which is less efficient and potentially overkill. The reference gold patch shows the preferred approach using .copy().

Uses copy.deepcopy instead of simple .copy()

Explanation: The patch includes comprehensive test coverage demonstrating the fix works correctly. However, it doesn't handle edge cases like nested dictionaries or complex error_message structures that might exist in real-world usage. The tests are thorough but don't cover all possible edge cases.

Good test coverage but limited edge case handling

No explicit handling of nested structures

Explanation: Code quality is acceptable but has issues. Uses copy.deepcopy unnecessarily when simple copy would suffice. The test file has some style violations and debug statements. The implementation follows the basic structure but could be cleaner with the simpler approach shown in the gold patch.

Style violations and debug statements present

Explanation: The change is minimal and focused on the specific issue. It only affects the __deepcopy__ method and adds one line. However, using copy.deepcopy may introduce performance overhead compared to the simpler .copy() approach. Risk is moderate but manageable.

Performance impact from copy.deepcopy usage

Explanation: While the patch fixes the reported issue, it's not production-ready due to using copy.deepcopy unnecessarily. A senior engineer would likely request changes to use the simpler .copy() approach. The test coverage is good but the implementation isn't optimal. Would need revision before merging.

Suboptimal implementation choice
Requires improvement before merging
Gold patch shows better approach


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by ensuring batch_size doesn't exceed database-compatible limits, aligning with bulk_update behavior. However, it applies the fix in two separate locations rather than centralizing it in `_batched_insert` like the reference gold patch, which could lead to inconsistency. The fix works for the reported scenario but isn't as comprehensive.

Doesn't centralize logic in _batched_insert

Explanation: The test covers basic scenarios including oversized batch sizes, None, and small batch sizes. However, it lacks edge case testing such as empty object lists, very large objects, or concurrent access conditions. Also, no error handling or validation for invalid inputs is included.

Missing edge case coverage
No input validation or error handling

Explanation: Code duplication exists with repeated lines calculating max_batch_size and adjusting batch_size. The style is generally acceptable but suffers from redundancy. There are trailing whitespace issues noted in extracted features. Readability is impacted by lack of DRY principles.

Code duplication
Trailing whitespace
Redundant calculations

Explanation: The change modifies core bulk creation logic and introduces new behavior around batch size handling. While it aims to prevent overflows, applying the same logic in two places increases risk of divergence. It doesn't touch shared interfaces directly but alters internal flow significantly.

Duplicated logic increases maintenance risk

Explanation: This patch fixes a real issue but does so imperfectly—by duplicating logic instead of centralizing it like the gold patch. It also has code quality issues and lacks robustness in edge cases. A senior engineer would likely request significant improvements before merging, especially regarding duplication and completeness.

Incomplete solution
Poor code reuse
Insufficient edge case coverage


Explanation: The patch directly addresses the root cause by preventing automatic override of user-defined `get_FIELD_display` methods. It checks for existing method before setting the default one, which resolves the issue described. The fix is targeted and correctly identifies the problematic behavior.

Explanation: While the patch handles the main issue, it doesn't consider potential edge cases like multiple inheritance scenarios or metaclass interactions. The solution is straightforward but lacks comprehensive testing for complex model hierarchies. No error handling beyond the basic check is added.

Explanation: The code follows Django's existing style perfectly with clear, readable logic. The change is minimal and maintains consistency with the surrounding codebase. The comment explains the intent clearly and the implementation matches the reference gold patch exactly.

Explanation: The change is minimal and surgical, only affecting the specific case where choices are defined. It shouldn't break existing functionality since it only prevents overriding when a method already exists. However, there's some risk in changing how methods are dynamically attached to classes.

Explanation: This is a solid, well-targeted fix that addresses the exact issue described. It's clean, minimal, and follows Django conventions. While not perfect, it's ready for review and would likely be approved by a senior engineer after minor validation. The patch demonstrates good understanding of the problem.


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by preserving the original container type (list vs tuple) when resolving lookup values. The fix ensures that input lists remain lists and tuples remain tuples, which directly resolves the issue described. The approach using `type(value)(resolved_values)` is semantically correct and maintains the intended behavior.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the main issue, it lacks comprehensive edge case handling. It doesn't account for other iterable types beyond list and tuple, nor does it handle potential issues with nested structures or custom iterables. The test coverage, while thorough, is limited to basic scenarios and doesn't cover all possible edge cases.

Missing handling of non-list/tuple iterables

Explanation: The code quality is acceptable and follows the existing pattern of the codebase. The change is minimal and focused, using Python's built-in type constructor to preserve container types. However, the implementation could benefit from more explicit handling of different iterable types and clearer documentation of the behavior.

Could be more explicit about type handling

Explanation: The change has moderate risk of regression since it modifies core ORM functionality. While the fix appears safe, changing how iterables are processed could potentially affect other parts of the system that depend on the previous tuple behavior. The scope is limited but impacts fundamental query resolution logic.

Core ORM modification
Potential downstream effects

Explanation: This patch shows promise but requires improvements before merging. It correctly identifies and addresses the core issue, but lacks sufficient edge case coverage and comprehensive testing. The implementation is functional but not production-ready without additional validation and documentation. A senior engineer would likely request changes to improve robustness and completeness.

Insufficient edge case coverage
Needs better documentation
Requires more comprehensive testing


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by applying `re.escape()` to the prefix parameter, which prevents regex special characters from being interpreted as regex syntax. This directly fixes the data loss issue described in the bug report. The fix is minimal and targeted to the specific problem.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the core issue, the accompanying test file is overly complex and includes redundant code. It also doesn't cover all possible regex special characters comprehensively. The test verification is more elaborate than necessary for a simple regex escape fix.

Overly complex test implementation
Redundant code in test file

Explanation: The code quality is acceptable and follows Django's style. The fix is clean and readable. However, the formatting in the reference patch shows better indentation practices with proper alignment. The test file has some stylistic issues including trailing whitespace and duplicated imports.

Formatting inconsistency in diff
Trailing whitespace in test file

Explanation: The change is extremely localized and surgical, affecting only one line in one method. It's highly unlikely to introduce regressions since it's simply escaping a string used in regex compilation. The modification doesn't alter any public APIs or shared interfaces.

Explanation: The core fix is correct and minimal, making it suitable for merging. However, the test file is excessive and poorly structured, which would be unacceptable in a real PR. The patch itself is solid but the supporting test code needs significant cleanup before it could be considered ready for production use.

Test file overcomplicated
Poor test organization


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by skipping the first line when calculating minimum indentation, which prevents the 'no content permitted' error. However, it doesn't fully align with the reference gold patch that uses `inspect.cleandoc` - a more standard Python approach. The fix works for the specific reported case but may miss some edge cases handled better by the gold patch.

Does not use inspect.cleandoc like the gold patch

Only handles the specific reported scenario

Explanation: The patch adds handling for leading/trailing blank lines and includes basic error handling with try/except. However, it lacks comprehensive edge case coverage such as all-empty docstrings, very short docstrings, or complex indentation patterns. It also doesn't handle the case where the first line itself might have content that needs special treatment.

Missing comprehensive edge case handling

Explanation: The code is functionally correct but overly complex for what should be a simple fix. It introduces multiple loops and conditional checks instead of using a standard library function. The logic flow is harder to follow than necessary, and the implementation is less idiomatic compared to the gold patch's use of `cleandoc`. Readability suffers due to verbosity.

Harder to maintain than alternative approaches

Explanation: The change modifies only one function and maintains backward compatibility for valid inputs. The scope is limited to the trim_docstring function which is used internally. However, since it replaces a well-established pattern with a custom implementation, there's potential for subtle differences in behavior that could affect other docstring processing.

Replaces established pattern with custom logic

Potential behavioral differences from original

Explanation: While the patch fixes the immediate issue, it's not production-ready quality. It's more of a workaround than a proper solution. The gold patch demonstrates superior design with cleaner, more maintainable code using standard library utilities. This patch would likely require significant refactoring before merging, especially given its lack of alignment with Python best practices.

Lacks integration with standard library approach


Explanation: The patch does not actually contain the fix - it only adds comprehensive test cases that reproduce the issue. The core problem in `parse_bits` function is not addressed. The reference gold patch shows the actual fix needed in the library.py file. This patch merely demonstrates the bug exists but doesn't solve it.

No actual code fix provided
Only test reproduction, no solution

Explanation: The test suite covers many edge cases including keyword-only arguments with defaults and duplicate keyword arguments, which is commendable. However, it fails to address the core issue since it doesn't implement the actual fix. The tests validate the problem but don't verify the fix works.

Missing actual implementation
Incomplete solution

Explanation: The test code has significant issues including hardcoded paths, excessive imports, and poor structure. It mixes test setup with test execution in a way that makes it hard to maintain. There are also style violations like trailing whitespace and overly verbose configuration. The approach to testing is not following Django's standard patterns.

Poor code organization
Hardcoded paths and values
Style violations
Overly complex setup

Explanation: Since this patch doesn't actually implement the fix, it introduces no risk of breaking existing functionality. However, the test suite itself is poorly structured and would likely break easily with minor changes to the environment or Django version. The lack of actual code change means no regression risk from the modification perspective.

No functional changes
Test suite is fragile

Explanation: This patch cannot be merged as-is because it provides no actual fix for the reported issue. It's essentially a test reproduction script that demonstrates the problem but doesn't solve it. Even if the tests were passing, the patch would be rejected due to its lack of actual implementation. A genuine fix would need to modify the core parsing logic in library.py.

No functional fix
Not merge-worthy as-is
Reproduces issue but doesn't fix it


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by moving the `use_required_attribute` method from `ClearableFileInput` to `FileInput`, ensuring that the required attribute is not displayed when initial data exists. This resolves the specific issue described where FileInput was incorrectly showing required attribute even when a file was already set. The logic is sound and directly targets the problem.

Explanation: While the patch fixes the stated issue, it doesn't appear to handle all edge cases like what happens with different types of initial data or complex form scenarios. There's no error handling for unusual initial data states, and the solution assumes that 'initial' will always be a boolean-like value which might not cover all real-world usage patterns.

Explanation: The code follows Django's existing patterns and style well. The implementation is clean, minimal, and maintains consistency with the existing codebase structure. The change is surgical and doesn't introduce any unnecessary complexity or violate existing conventions.

Explanation: The change has minimal scope and only affects the behavior of the `use_required_attribute` method. However, since both `FileInput` and `ClearableFileInput` now share this method, there could be subtle behavioral differences in edge cases that weren't considered. The modification moves logic rather than adding new behavior, reducing risk but not eliminating it entirely.

Explanation: This patch would likely need some additional review before merging due to the shared interface change between parent and child classes. While it correctly implements the fix described in the issue, the minimal nature of the change combined with potential edge case impacts makes it borderline acceptable without further scrutiny. A senior engineer might want to see more comprehensive testing or documentation of the behavioral change.


Explanation: The patch addresses the symptom (callable enum classes in templates) by adding `do_not_call_in_templates = True` to the enum classes, which is the correct Django approach. However, it applies this fix at the wrong level - it modifies specific subclasses rather than the base metaclass where the fix should be applied to ensure all enum types inherit this behavior automatically.

Incorrect implementation location
Doesn't address root cause properly

Explanation: The patch includes comprehensive test cases covering edge cases like inheritance, template rendering, and complex expressions. However, it misses some important scenarios such as testing with IntegerChoices and doesn't cover potential issues with custom enum implementations that might not inherit from the modified classes.

Incomplete edge case coverage
Missing IntegerChoices testing

Explanation: Code structure is functional but repetitive with three separate additions of the same attribute. The style is inconsistent with the reference patch which uses a single metaclass-level fix. There are also trailing whitespace issues and debug print statements that should be removed.

Repetitive code pattern
Style violations
Debug statements present

Explanation: The change introduces risk by modifying multiple classes individually instead of using the centralized metaclass approach. This could lead to inconsistencies if new enum subclasses are added without the attribute. It also increases maintenance burden since the fix must be manually applied to each new subclass.

High maintenance burden
Inconsistent approach across classes

Explanation: While the patch technically fixes the reported issue, it's poorly implemented compared to the reference solution. The approach is overly verbose and doesn't follow Django's established patterns. A senior engineer would likely request significant changes to align with the proper metaclass-based solution.

Poor implementation approach
Doesn't match reference quality
Requires major rework


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the JSONField display issue by adding special handling in display_for_field. However, it introduces unnecessary complexity by creating a FormJSONField instance and calling prepare_value, which doesn't align with the reference gold patch's simpler approach. The gold patch uses field.get_prep_value() which is more direct and appropriate for this use case.

overcomplicated approach
doesn't match reference solution

Explanation: The patch handles the main case but lacks proper error handling for the specific InvalidJSONInput exception mentioned in the issue. It also doesn't consider edge cases like None values or malformed JSON inputs beyond the basic try/except block. The test files show some testing but don't cover comprehensive edge cases.

incomplete error handling
missing edge case coverage

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to over-engineering with FormJSONField creation, unnecessary imports, and complex logic. The approach diverges significantly from Django's existing patterns. There are also style issues like trailing whitespace and verbose test code that reduces readability.

over-engineered solution
poor code structure
style violations

Explanation: The change modifies core admin utility code which could affect many field types. While it only adds special handling for JSONField, the approach of instantiating form fields in a utility function is risky and could have unintended side effects. The scope is moderate but impacts shared code paths.

modifies core utility function
unusual instantiation pattern

Explanation: This patch would not be approved by a senior engineer due to its overcomplicated approach, poor code quality, and deviation from the established pattern shown in the reference solution. It introduces unnecessary complexity while failing to properly address the specific error conditions mentioned in the issue description.

reject-worthy complexity
fails to match reference approach
poor implementation quality


Explanation: The patch correctly changes the default SECURE_REFERRER_POLICY from None to 'same-origin', directly addressing the security issue of information leakage. It properly implements the proposed security improvement by setting a more restrictive default policy that limits referrer information to same-origin requests.

Explanation: While the core change is correct, the patch includes excessive test code that goes far beyond what's needed for basic validation. The additional test suite is overly complex and doesn't add meaningful edge case coverage. Most importantly, it doesn't actually test the specific security implications mentioned in the issue.

Explanation: The core change itself is minimal and correct, but the accompanying test file has poor quality with redundant imports, debug prints, and unnecessary complexity. There are also trailing whitespace issues and the test file structure is awkward. The test code doesn't follow Django's testing conventions.

Explanation: The change is minimal and only affects one default value in global_settings.py. However, changing a default could potentially break applications that rely on the previous None behavior, though this is mitigated by the fact that the feature was introduced in Django 3.0 and applications would need to explicitly configure it anyway.

Explanation: The core change is correct but the patch is not ready for merging due to excessive test code that adds no value and poor code quality. The test file should be removed or significantly simplified. A senior engineer would likely request changes to remove the unnecessary test suite and improve code quality before approval.


Explanation: The patch does not actually contain the fix for the root cause. It only adds comprehensive test cases that demonstrate the issue but don't implement any solution. The reference gold patch shows the actual fix needed in the schema backend, which is completely absent from this submission.

No actual code fix provided
Only test cases added

Explanation: The test suite covers multiple scenarios including the original issue and reverse cases, but lacks proper edge case handling and doesn't include the actual implementation fix. The tests are overly verbose and repetitive rather than focused on minimal verification.

Overly verbose test structure
Missing actual fix implementation

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive duplication across test files, hardcoded values, debug print statements, and lack of proper test organization. The test files mix configuration setup with test logic in an unprofessional manner. Style violations present throughout.

Excessive code duplication
Hardcoded values used
Debug print statements present

Explanation: Since no actual functional code changes are present, there's minimal risk of breaking existing functionality. However, the patch fails to address the core issue entirely, making it fundamentally incomplete rather than just risky.

No functional changes
Incomplete solution

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright as it provides no actual fix for the reported issue. It's essentially a test suite that demonstrates problems without solving them, and contains numerous code quality issues that would never pass review in a real codebase.

Reject - no functional fix
Poor code quality
Unreviewable test structure


Explanation: The patch correctly identifies and fixes the root cause: the widget parameter was being unconditionally overwritten regardless of whether it was provided by the caller. The fix ensures that if a widget is explicitly passed, it's preserved. This directly addresses the issue description where widget override failed in formfield_for_manytomany().

Explanation: The patch handles the core issue well but lacks comprehensive error handling for edge cases like invalid widget types or malformed kwargs. The test script shows the functionality works but doesn't cover all possible failure modes or boundary conditions. However, it does demonstrate the fix works for the main use case.

Missing comprehensive error handling
Limited edge case coverage

Explanation: The code follows Django's existing patterns and structure well. The change is minimal and focused, maintaining consistency with the existing codebase style. However, there are some stylistic issues like trailing whitespace and long lines that should be cleaned up before merging.

Trailing whitespace detected
Line too long in some places

Explanation: The change is surgical and only affects the specific conditional logic around widget assignment. It preserves all existing behavior when no widget is specified while adding the new override capability. The scope is appropriate and unlikely to break existing functionality since it only adds a guard condition.

Explanation: This is a solid functional fix that addresses the stated issue properly. However, it would benefit from minor cleanup of style issues and potentially more robust error handling before merging. A senior engineer might approve after minor revisions but would likely request improvements to code quality and test coverage.

Style issues need addressing
Could use more comprehensive testing


Explanation: The patch correctly addresses the root cause by removing the redundant `using` parameter from `execute_sql_flush()` and inferring the database alias from `self.connection.alias`. This aligns with the issue description and the reference gold patch. The change ensures the method signature simplifies as requested.

Explanation: While the patch handles the main functional change, it lacks comprehensive error handling or edge case considerations. It modifies core behavior without adding safeguards or documentation about potential side effects. The change is functionally correct but not robustly complete.

Missing error handling
No edge case coverage

Explanation: Code quality is acceptable; the changes follow Django's style and structure. The formatting of the `transaction.atomic` call is slightly improved in the gold patch but still readable. Minor stylistic improvements could be made, such as consistent indentation or spacing, but overall it's clean and clear.

Formatting inconsistency
Minor readability improvement possible

Explanation: The scope of changes is limited to one method signature and its usage, which reduces risk. However, since this affects a base operation used across backends, any incorrect inference of `self.connection.alias` could introduce subtle bugs. The modification is safe but requires careful review of backend-specific implementations.

Backend compatibility concern
Shared interface modification

Explanation: This patch fixes the stated problem but lacks polish and completeness. It would benefit from additional testing, documentation, or defensive programming before merging. While technically correct, it doesn't meet the standard of a senior engineer's approval due to minimal robustness and lack of edge case consideration.

Not production-ready
Requires further review


Explanation: The patch attempts to address the field clashing issue by adding dependencies to ensure proper operation ordering. However, it's overly complex and doesn't correctly identify the root cause. The reference gold patch shows a much cleaner approach that directly checks for field removals from base classes that would conflict with new fields in subclasses. This patch adds unnecessary logic and doesn't properly handle the dependency chain.

Doesn't match reference gold patch approach

Explanation: The test coverage is extensive but includes redundant and overly verbose test code. The patch handles the main scenario described in the issue but fails to consider edge cases like multiple field moves, nested inheritance, or complex field relationships. The test script is also very verbose and contains duplicated code.

Redundant test code
Missing edge case coverage
Verbose implementation

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive verbosity, redundant logic, and unclear variable names. The patch introduces many lines of code that don't add value compared to the reference solution. There are also style issues like trailing whitespace and inconsistent formatting. The logic flow is convoluted rather than straightforward.

Excessive verbosity
Poor variable naming
Style issues
Complex logic

Explanation: The change modifies core migration autodetection logic which could impact many migration scenarios. While it appears targeted, the complex implementation increases risk of unintended side effects. The patch touches fundamental migration generation behavior and could affect other migration patterns beyond the specific issue.

Core logic modification
High-risk change scope
Unpredictable side effects

Explanation: This patch would not be acceptable for merging as-is. It's fundamentally flawed compared to the reference gold patch, introduces unnecessary complexity, and has poor code quality. Even though tests pass, the approach is wrong and would likely break in real-world usage. A senior engineer would definitely request significant changes.

Fundamentally flawed approach
Poor code quality
Would not pass code review


Explanation: The patch correctly identifies that the issue stems from not checking UniqueConstraints when validating field uniqueness for in_bulk(). It adds logic to check if a field is part of a single-field UniqueConstraint. However, it doesn't fully address the root cause because it only checks for exact field matches in constraints without considering potential composite constraints that might affect uniqueness.

Explanation: The patch includes basic test cases but lacks comprehensive edge case coverage. It doesn't handle scenarios like composite constraints involving the field, or ensure proper behavior with multiple overlapping constraints. The implementation also doesn't consider performance implications of iterating through all constraints every time in_bulk is called.

Explanation: Code structure is functional but not optimal. The logic is somewhat convoluted with nested conditions and repeated calls to get_field(). It introduces a new debug script that shouldn't be part of the main patch. The variable naming is acceptable but could be more descriptive.

Explanation: The change modifies core query behavior which increases risk. While it's targeted, the approach of checking all constraints on every call could impact performance. The patch also introduces a new debug file that shouldn't be part of the final solution, indicating poor review process.

Explanation: This patch is not ready for merging. It has significant issues including inclusion of debug code, suboptimal implementation, and incomplete edge case coverage. Even though it passes tests, it would likely break in production due to performance concerns and lacks proper integration with Django's existing patterns. A human-written patch like the reference shows much better design and consideration.


Explanation: The patch does not actually implement the fix - it only adds comprehensive tests that verify the expected behavior. The core issue remains unresolved because the patch doesn't modify the ExpressionWrapper class to properly delegate get_group_by_cols to its wrapped expression. The gold patch shows the minimal, correct change needed.

Patch only adds tests without addressing root cause

Explanation: The test suite is extensive and covers multiple expression types including Value, Field, CombinedExpression, and AggregateExpression. It includes edge cases and validates both the before and after states. However, it fails to actually apply the fix to the codebase.

Tests cover many scenarios
No implementation of fix in source code

Explanation: The test code is verbose and repetitive, with significant duplication across test functions. There are style violations like long lines and trailing whitespace. The approach of creating multiple test files is unnecessarily complex for what should be a simple behavioral verification.

Excessive code duplication
Style violations present
Overly complex test structure

Explanation: Since no actual code changes are made to the Django core, there's no risk of breaking existing functionality. However, the patch creates a false sense of resolution since it doesn't address the underlying problem. The test-only approach makes it impossible to verify real-world impact.

No actual code modification
False positive resolution

Explanation: This patch should be rejected outright. It provides no functional fix to the reported issue and instead offers only test coverage that cannot validate the actual solution. A senior engineer would immediately recognize this as a non-fix that gives false confidence. The patch is fundamentally broken and would not be acceptable in any production codebase.

Would be rejected by any senior engineer


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by overriding the subparser creation to ensure error formatting consistency. However, it does so in a complex way that modifies the internal behavior of argparse's subparsers rather than leveraging the existing CommandParser infrastructure properly. The gold patch is cleaner and more aligned with Django's design patterns.

doesn't fully leverage existing CommandParser features

Explanation: The patch handles the specific error case described but doesn't cover all potential edge cases like different parser configurations or nested subcommands. It introduces a new test script but doesn't integrate with Django's test suite. The error handling is basic and doesn't account for all possible failure modes.

test script not integrated into Django tests

Explanation: Code quality is poor due to excessive nesting and complex closure usage. The approach of monkey-patching the add_parser method within add_subparsers is unnecessarily convoluted. The gold patch demonstrates a much cleaner solution using functools.partial. Readability suffers significantly.

excessive complexity
hard-to-follow closure pattern
poor encapsulation

Explanation: The change modifies core argparse behavior which could affect other parts of Django that rely on subparsers. While it's contained to CommandParser, the monkey-patching approach introduces risk of breaking existing functionality. The gold patch is safer as it uses inheritance and composition properly.

monkey-patching approach
modifies core argparse behavior

Explanation: This patch would not be acceptable for merging as-is. It's overly complex, hard to maintain, and doesn't follow Django's established patterns. The gold patch is superior in every aspect. Even though tests pass, the implementation quality is too poor for production code.

unacceptable implementation quality
violates Django coding conventions
would require significant refactoring


Explanation: The patch addresses the root cause by adding the missing `has_add_permission` check, which aligns with the issue description that 'save_as_new' is an add modification. However, the fix is incomplete because it replaces `has_change_permission` with `has_add_permission` rather than adding the check alongside it, which could introduce unintended behavior.

Incorrect logic replacement
Missing proper permission flow

Explanation: The patch fails to handle edge cases and doesn't consider the full permission flow. It introduces a reproduction script but no actual test cases to verify the fix works correctly in various scenarios. The fix also doesn't account for potential interactions with other permissions or conditions.

No test coverage
Incomplete edge case handling
Reproduction script not functional

Explanation: The code quality is poor due to incorrect logic implementation. The patch modifies the core Django admin template logic incorrectly by replacing one permission check with another instead of adding the new check. The addition of a reproduction script with hardcoded Django setup is also unprofessional and unnecessary for a core fix.

Incorrect permission logic
Poor code structure
Unnecessary reproduction script

Explanation: The change has a high non-regression risk because it modifies core admin template logic by changing the fundamental permission check. Replacing `has_change_permission` with `has_add_permission` could break existing functionality for users who legitimately have change permissions but not add permissions. The scope is moderate but impactful.

High impact logic change
Potential breaking change
Inappropriate permission replacement

Explanation: This patch should not be merged as-is. It contains a fundamental logical error that would break existing functionality. The approach is flawed - it replaces one permission check with another instead of properly adding the missing check. A senior engineer would reject this patch outright due to correctness issues and lack of proper testing.

Fundamental logic error
Not ready for production
Requires complete rework