I’m not against this idea but I think the proposed skeleton may be confusing for new users (because of the empty list for urlpatterns
).
More so, when startproject
is ran, the urls.py
has a nice module-level comment block with instructions in how to use/grow that file:
"""
URL configuration for emptytest project.
The `urlpatterns` list routes URLs to views. For more information please see:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/http/urls/
Examples:
Function views
1. Add an import: from my_app import views
2. Add a URL to urlpatterns: path('', views.home, name='home')
Class-based views
1. Add an import: from other_app.views import Home
2. Add a URL to urlpatterns: path('', Home.as_view(), name='home')
Including another URLconf
1. Import the include() function: from django.urls import include, path
2. Add a URL to urlpatterns: path('blog/', include('blog.urls'))
"""
from django.contrib import admin
from django.urls import path
urlpatterns = [
path("admin/", admin.site.urls),
]
The proposed per-app urls.py
feels like it may need a comment block or reference to the one in the projects’s main urls.py
, since it’s very helpful.
Also, I would be of the opinion that the urlpatterns = []
should be removed, so it’s consistent with models.py
and views.py
(one import line and one comment line and nothing else).
Natalia.