Add migration due to noop FK from Django 4.0

[Andrew-Chen-Wang]

Description of the Change

I wanted to double check that 4.0.1 wouldn't create a new migration. Turns out, I missed a comment from the PR that mentions how a migration would still be created. The reason is because of the related_name using the placeholder itself now rather than using "oauth2_provider".

Fortunately, this migration isn't as drastic as the auth.User one which would have deleted data... Let me know if I'm missing anything else.

Checklist

• PR only contains one change (considered splitting up PR)
• unit-test added
• documentation updated
• CHANGELOG.md updated (only for user relevant changes)
• author name in AUTHORS

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.67%. Comparing base (27821a8) to head (8141aaf).
Report is 214 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@ Coverage Diff @@## master #1056 +/- ## ======================================= Coverage 96.67% 96.67% ======================================= Files 31 31 Lines 1777 1777 ======================================= Hits 1718 1718 Misses 59 59 

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[n2ygk]

I'm marking this as a draft until I get a chance to dig in deeper to better understand the impact.

Unfortunately swappable models and migrations in DOT have always been a problem, with lots of manual tweaking of auto migrations required in the past. I've never completely understood the reasoning....

[n2ygk]

@Andrew-Chen-Wang I'm reading the PR commit django/django@4328970 and don't see where it says the new migration should be created....

[Andrew-Chen-Wang]

django/django#15205 (comment) and its reply

[n2ygk]

django/django#15205 (comment) and its reply

Ah so it's in 4.0 release notes. The 4.0.1 thing talked about a different fix that you reported the bug for. Got it. So we'll have this noop migration....