Add Global Auditing Disable Feature

[snopoke]

Note

This code was originally written by Claude AI

Summary

Adds the ability to globally disable auditing in django-field-audit, providing both application-wide control via Django settings and fine-grained runtime control via context managers. This feature is particularly useful for unit tests, data migrations, bulk imports, and maintenance operations where audit overhead is not needed.

Implementation

Core Infrastructure

• Context Variable: Uses Python's contextvars for thread-safe, async-safe state management
• Check Function: is_audit_enabled() checks context variable first, then falls back to Django setting
• Context Managers: disable_audit() and enable_audit() for runtime control

API

New public API exports:

from field_audit import disable_audit, enable_audit

New Django setting:

FIELD_AUDIT_ENABLED = False  # Default: True

Usage Examples

Global Disable via Setting

# settings.py
FIELD_AUDIT_ENABLED = False

Runtime Disable

from field_audit import disable_audit

# Temporarily disable auditing
with disable_audit():
    obj.save()  # No audit event created
    MyModel.objects.bulk_create(objects)  # No audit events

Override Global Setting

from field_audit import enable_audit

# When FIELD_AUDIT_ENABLED=False, temporarily enable
with enable_audit():
    obj.save()  # Audit event IS created

Use Cases

Unit Tests - Improve performance by skipping audit overhead:

def test_without_audit(self):
    with disable_audit():
        obj = MyModel.objects.create(field="test")

Data Migrations - Skip auditing during bulk operations:

def migrate_data():
    with disable_audit():
        MyModel.objects.filter(old=True).update(new=True)

Backwards Compatibility

The new features added in this PR are opt-in and do not break backward compatibility.

[millerdev]

Zero performance impact when enabled: Check overhead <1μs

Is this always true? Is this AI-generated PR description content? Seems like the entire Backwards Compatibility section could be removed or replaced with a single line: "The new features added in this PR are opt-in and do not break backward compatibility."

---

This PR seems unnecessarily verbose—and I didn't even read the whole plan doc, which feels wrong because it's slated to be kept in the repo. Wading through AI slop is tiring. The time savings gained by using AI seem to have translated to extra review time. That's frustrating.

[snopoke]

@millerdev apologies for the rebase, I wasn't thinking.

[SmittieC]

Looks fine to me

[millerdev]

@millerdev apologies for the rebase, I wasn't thinking.

Looks like the plan doc was somehow completely removed in the rebase, and surprisingly I don't even see it removed in the before/after rebase compare view (although it's in the previous branch history). I guess that's fine.

Maybe I missed it, but I think there is no attribution to AI code generation anywhere in this PR anymore. How do you think about that? Is it reasonable to not mention when AI is used to write code?

[snopoke]

@millerdev apologies for the rebase, I wasn't thinking.

Looks like the plan doc was somehow completely removed in the rebase, and surprisingly I don't even see it removed in the before/after rebase compare view (although it's in the previous branch history). I guess that's fine.

Maybe I missed it, but I think there is no attribution to AI code generation anywhere in this PR anymore. How do you think about that? Is it reasonable to not mention when AI is used to write code?

I thought the original commits had co-authorship - but maybe not since I rebased.

I've added a note at the top of the PR description.