Related
With Django REST Framework, a standard ModelSerializer will allow ForeignKey model relationships to be assigned or changed by POSTing an ID as an Integer.
What's the simplest way to get this behavior out of a nested serializer?
Note, I am only talking about assigning existing database objects, not nested creation.
I have hacked away around this in the past with additional 'id' fields in the serializer and with custom create and update methods, but this is such a seemingly simple and frequent issue for me that I'm curious to know the best way.
class Child(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
class Parent(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
phone_number = models.ForeignKey(PhoneNumber)
child = models.ForeignKey(Child)
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
# phone_number relation is automatic and will accept ID integers
children = ChildSerializer() # this one will not
class Meta:
model = Parent
Updated on July 05 2020
This post is getting more attention and it indicates more people have a similar situation. So I decided to add a generic way to handle this problem. This generic way is best suitable for you if you have more serializers that need to change to this format
Since DRF doesn't provide this functionality out of the box, we need to create a serializer field first.
from rest_framework import serializers
class RelatedFieldAlternative(serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.serializer = kwargs.pop('serializer', None)
if self.serializer is not None and not issubclass(self.serializer, serializers.Serializer):
raise TypeError('"serializer" is not a valid serializer class')
super().__init__(**kwargs)
def use_pk_only_optimization(self):
return False if self.serializer else True
def to_representation(self, instance):
if self.serializer:
return self.serializer(instance, context=self.context).data
return super().to_representation(instance)
I am not well impressed with this class name, RelatedFieldAlternative, you can use anything you want.
Then use this new serializer field in your parent serializer as,
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
child = RelatedFieldAlternative(queryset=Child.objects.all(), serializer=ChildSerializer)
class Meta:
model = Parent
fields = '__all__'
Original Post
Using two different fields would be ok (as #Kevin Brown and #joslarson mentioned), but I think it's not perfect (to me). Because getting data from one key (child) and sending data to another key (child_id) might be a little bit ambiguous for front-end developers. (no offense at all)
So, what I suggest here is, override the to_representation() method of ParentSerializer will do the job.
def to_representation(self, instance):
response = super().to_representation(instance)
response['child'] = ChildSerializer(instance.child).data
return response
Complete representation of Serializer
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
fields = '__all__'
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Parent
fields = '__all__'
def to_representation(self, instance):
response = super().to_representation(instance)
response['child'] = ChildSerializer(instance.child).data
return response
Advantage of this method?
By using this method, we don't need two separate fields for creation and reading. Here both creation and reading can be done by using child key.
Sample payload to create parent instance
{
"name": "TestPOSTMAN_name",
"phone_number": 1,
"child": 1
}
Screenshot
The best solution here is to use two different fields: one for reading and the other for writing. Without doing some heavy lifting, it is difficult to get what you are looking for in a single field.
The read-only field would be your nested serializer (ChildSerializer in this case) and it will allow you to get the same nested representation that you are expecting. Most people define this as just child, because they already have their front-end written by this point and changing it would cause problems.
The write-only field would be a PrimaryKeyRelatedField, which is what you would typically use for assigning objects based on their primary key. This does not have to be write-only, especially if you are trying to go for symmetry between what is received and what is sent, but it sounds like that might suit you best. This field should have a source set to the foreign key field (child in this example) so it assigns it properly on creation and updating.
This has been brought up on the discussion group a few times, and I think this is still the best solution. Thanks to Sven Maurer for pointing it out.
Here's an example of what Kevin's answer is talking about, if you want to take that approach and use 2 separate fields.
In your models.py...
class Child(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
class Parent(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
phone_number = models.ForeignKey(PhoneNumber)
child = models.ForeignKey(Child)
then serializers.py...
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
# if child is required
child = ChildSerializer(read_only=True)
# if child is a required field and you want write to child properties through parent
# child = ChildSerializer(required=False)
# otherwise the following should work (untested)
# child = ChildSerializer()
child_id = serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField(
queryset=Child.objects.all(), source='child', write_only=True)
class Meta:
model = Parent
Setting source=child lets child_id act as child would by default had it not be overridden (our desired behavior). write_only=True makes child_id available to write to, but keeps it from showing up in the response since the id already shows up in the ChildSerializer.
There is a way to substitute a field on create/update operation:
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
child = ChildSerializer()
# called on create/update operations
def to_internal_value(self, data):
self.fields['child'] = serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField(
queryset=Child.objects.all())
return super(ParentSerializer, self).to_internal_value(data)
class Meta:
model = Parent
A few people here have placed a way to keep one field but still be able to get the details when retrieving the object and create it with only the ID. I made a little more generic implementation if people are interested:
First off the tests:
from rest_framework.relations import PrimaryKeyRelatedField
from django.test import TestCase
from .serializers import ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField, ProductSerializer
from .factories import SomethingElseFactory
from .models import SomethingElse
class TestModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(TestCase):
def setUp(self):
self.serializer = ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(
model_serializer_class=SomethingElseSerializer,
queryset=SomethingElse.objects.all(),
)
def test_inherits_from_primary_key_related_field(self):
assert issubclass(ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField, PrimaryKeyRelatedField)
def test_use_pk_only_optimization_returns_false(self):
self.assertFalse(self.serializer.use_pk_only_optimization())
def test_to_representation_returns_serialized_object(self):
obj = SomethingElseFactory()
ret = self.serializer.to_representation(obj)
self.assertEqual(ret, SomethingElseSerializer(instance=obj).data)
Then the class itself:
from rest_framework.relations import PrimaryKeyRelatedField
class ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(PrimaryKeyRelatedField):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.model_serializer_class = kwargs.pop('model_serializer_class')
super().__init__(**kwargs)
def use_pk_only_optimization(self):
return False
def to_representation(self, value):
return self.model_serializer_class(instance=value).data
The usage is like so, if you have a serializer somewhere:
class YourSerializer(ModelSerializer):
something_else = ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(queryset=SomethingElse.objects.all(), model_serializer_class=SomethingElseSerializer)
This will allow you to create an object with a foreign key still only with the PK, but will return the full serialized nested model when retrieving the object you created (or whenever really).
There is a package for that! Check out PresentablePrimaryKeyRelatedField in Drf Extra Fields package.
https://github.com/Hipo/drf-extra-fields
I think the approach outlined by Kevin probably would be the best solution, but I couldn't ever get it to work. DRF kept throwing errors when I had both a nested serializer and a primary key field set. Removing one or the other would function, but obviously didn't give me the result I needed. The best I could come up with is creating two different serializers for reading and writing, Like so...
serializers.py:
class ChildSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
class ParentSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
abstract = True
model = Parent
fields = ('id', 'child', 'foo', 'bar', 'etc')
class ParentReadSerializer(ParentSerializer):
child = ChildSerializer()
views.py
class ParentViewSet(viewsets.ModelViewSet):
serializer_class = ParentSerializer
queryset = Parent.objects.all()
def get_serializer_class(self):
if self.request.method == 'GET':
return ParentReadSerializer
else:
return self.serializer_class
Here's how I've solved this problem.
serializers.py
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
def to_internal_value(self, data):
if data.get('id'):
return get_object_or_404(Child.objects.all(), pk=data.get('id'))
return super(ChildSerializer, self).to_internal_value(data)
You'll just pass your nested child serializer just as you get it from the serializer ie child as a json/dictionary. in to_internal_value we instantiate the child object if it has a valid ID so that DRF can further work with the object.
I started by implementing something similar to JPG's solution before I found this answer, and noticed that it breaks the built-in Django Rest Framework's templates. Now, that isn't such a big deal (as their solution works wonderfully via requests/postman/AJAX/curl/etc.), but if someone's new (like me) and wants the built-in DRF form to help them along the way, here's my solution (after cleaning it up and integrating some of JPG's ideas):
class NestedKeyField(serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.serializer = kwargs.pop('serializer', None)
if self.serializer is not None and not issubclass(self.serializer, serializers.Serializer):
raise TypeError('You need to pass a instance of serialzers.Serializer or atleast something that inherits from it.')
super().__init__(**kwargs)
def use_pk_only_optimization(self):
return not self.serializer
def to_representation(self, value):
if self.serializer:
return dict(self.serializer(value, context=self.context).data)
else:
return super().to_representation(value)
def get_choices(self, cutoff=None):
queryset = self.get_queryset()
if queryset is None:
return {}
if cutoff is not None:
queryset = queryset[:cutoff]
return OrderedDict([
(
self.to_representation(item)['id'] if self.serializer else self.to_representation(item), # If you end up using another column-name for your primary key, you'll have to change this extraction-key here so it maps the select-element properly.
self.display_value(item)
)
for item in queryset
])
and an example below,
Child Serializer class:
class ChildSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = ChildModel
fields = '__all__'
Parent Serializer Class:
class ParentSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
same_field_name_as_model_foreign_key = NestedKeyField(queryset=ChildModel.objects.all(), serializer=ChildSerializer)
class Meta:
model = ParentModel
fields = '__all__'
Based on the answers of both JPG and Bono, I came up with a solution that handles the OpenAPI Schema generator of DRF as well.
The actual field class is:
from rest_framework import serializers
class ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField):
def __init__(self, **kwargs):
self.response_serializer_class = kwargs.pop('response_serializer_class', None)
if self.response_serializer_class is not None \
and not issubclass(self.response_serializer_class, serializers.Serializer):
raise TypeError('"serializer" is not a valid serializer class')
super(ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField, self).__init__(**kwargs)
def use_pk_only_optimization(self):
return False if self.response_serializer_class else True
def to_representation(self, instance):
if self.response_serializer_class is not None:
return self.response_serializer_class(instance, context=self.context).data
return super(ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField, self).to_representation(instance)
The extended AutoSchema class is:
import inspect
from rest_framework.schemas.openapi import AutoSchema
from .fields import ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField
class CustomSchema(AutoSchema):
def _map_field(self, field):
if isinstance(field, ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField) \
and hasattr(field, 'response_serializer_class'):
frame = inspect.currentframe().f_back
while frame is not None:
method_name = frame.f_code.co_name
if method_name == '_get_request_body':
break
elif method_name == '_get_responses':
field = field.response_serializer_class()
return super(CustomSchema, self)._map_field(field)
frame = frame.f_back
return super(CustomSchema, self)._map_field(field)
Then on your Dganjo's project settings you can define this new Schema class to be used globally like:
REST_FRAMEWORK = {
'DEFAULT_SCHEMA_CLASS': '<path_to_custom_schema>.CustomSchema',
}
Lastly from within your models you can use the new field type like:
class ExampleSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
test_field = ModelRepresentationPrimaryKeyRelatedField(queryset=Test.objects.all(), response_serializer_class=TestListSerializer)
I have been also stuck in the same situation. But what i have done that i have created two serializers for the following models as follow:
class Base_Location(models.Model):
Base_Location_id = models.AutoField(primary_key = True)
Base_Location_Name = models.CharField(max_length=50, db_column="Base_Location_Name")
class Location(models.Model):
Location_id = models.AutoField(primary_key = True)
Location_Name = models.CharField(max_length=50, db_column="Location_Name")
Base_Location_id = models.ForeignKey(Base_Location, db_column="Base_Location_id", related_name="Location_Base_Location", on_delete=models.CASCADE)
This is my parent serializer
class BaseLocationSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Base_Location
fields = "__all__"
I'm using this serializer only for get request so in response i got data with foreign key also because of nested serializer
class LocationSerializerList(serializers.ModelSerializer): <-- using for get request
Base_Location_id = BaseLocationSerializer()
class Meta:
model = Location
fields = "__all__"
Screenshot of get method request and response in postman
I'm using this serializer only for post request so while sending post request i do not need to include any additional information rather than primary key field value
class LocationSerializerInsert(serializers.ModelSerializer): <-- using for post request
class Meta:
model = Location
fields = "__all__"
Screenshot of post method request and response in postman
Here's what I'm using all over. This may be the simplest, most straight forward method which needs no hacks etc, and is directly using DRF without jumping thru hoops. Happy to hear disagreements with this approach.
In the view's perform_create (or equivalent), fetch the FK model database object corresponding to the field sent in the POST request, and then send that into the Serializer. The field in the POST request can be anything that can be used to filter and locate the DB object, need not be an ID.
This is documented here: https://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/generic-views/#genericapiview
These hooks are particularly useful for setting attributes that are
implicit in the request, but are not part of the request data. For
instance, you might set an attribute on the object based on the
request user, or based on a URL keyword argument.
def perform_create(self, serializer):
serializer.save(user=self.request.user)
This method also has the advantage of maintaining parity between the read and write side, by not sending a nested representation for child in the response to the GET or POST.
Given the example posted by the OP:
class Child(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
class Parent(models.Model):
name = CharField(max_length=20)
phone_number = models.ForeignKey(PhoneNumber)
child = models.ForeignKey(Child)
class ChildSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Child
class ParentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
# Note this is different from the OP's example. This will send the
# child name in the response
child = serializers.ReadOnlyField(source='child.name')
class Meta:
model = Parent
fields = ('name', 'phone_number', 'child')
In the View's perform_create:
class SomethingView(generics.ListCreateAPIView):
serializer_class = ParentSerializer
def perform_create(self, serializer):
child_name = self.request.data.get('child_name', None)
child_obj = get_object_or_404(Child.objects, name=child_name)
serializer.save(child=child_obj)
PS: Please note that I've not tested this above snippet, however its based on a pattern I'm using in many places so it should work as is.
I would like to create a custom manager for my model class that still returns a lazy queryset, but incorporates some data in each object that is not stored in the database. For simplicity, let's say I have something like:
class ProxyNodeManager(models.Manager):
def _get_extra_data(self):
# this would be something like a 3rd party API call
return "abcdef"
class Node(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=32)
desc = models.CharField(max_length=255)
class ProxyNode(Node):
objects = ProxyNodeManager()
class Meta:
proxy = True
A call to Node.objects.all() would return a QuerySet with name and desc fields, but a call to ProxyNode.all() would return a QuerySet that populates an 'extra' field that has the result of ProxyNodeManager._get_extra_data() as a value when the nodes are evaluated.
Any pointers?
Override iterator method in ProxyNodeManager.
You can base on how django does it.
I'm new to Django and trying to understand how to use querysets with models.
Model
class Channel(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
accountid = models.CharField(max_length=34)
def get_channel_list(self):
return self.get_queryset().name()
What I want to do is return the entire name column as an array if account id matches. I'd like to use a function in the models.py but I haven't found an online sample that caters to what I'm looking for.
The above isn't returning any data even without a filter.
Any point in the right direction would be amazing.
Use objects.filter and classmethod:
class Channel(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
accountid = models.CharField(max_length=34)
#classmethod
def get_channel_list(cls, acc):
return cls.objects.filter(accountid=acc).values_list('name', flat=True)
There is another technique to do such things in django - define custom manager to model. (for example, you have several Channel models inherited from one base proxy model and you want to put same get_channel_list functions to some models - custom Manager is the way to go):
class ChannelManager(models.Manager):
def get_channel_list(self, acc):
return self.filter(accountid=acc).values_list('name', flat=True)
class Channel(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
accountid = models.CharField(max_length=34)
objects = ChannelManager()
You have failed to understand the difference between managers and models. It's the manager that it's responsible for creating queries, and which has the get_queryset method. From a model, you need to access the manager, which is usually named objects. Note, you cannot do that from an instance, so this needs to be a classmethod.
#classmethod
def get_channel_list(cls, accountid):
return cls.objects.filter(accountid=accountid).values_list('name')
I have read the definition in the official Django documentation, and I am still confused by what a Manager does.
The documentation says that they allow you to operate on database tables/models, but I still don't understand this.
Can someone explain managers and their role to me? An answer with an example would be preferable.
A manager is usually something hidden away from django programmers that django uses to interface between model code and the database backend.
When you query the django ORM, you do so through calls to
from my_app.models import MyModel
mms = MyModel.objects.all()
In this case, the objects part of the function is what is returned by the manager. If you wanted MyModel to only ever get blue MyModel instances (the database might contain red models too) then you could create a manager and hack your model thus
class BlueManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
return super(BlueManager, self).get_query_set().filter(colour='Blue')
class MyModel(models.Model):
colour = models.CharField(max_length=64)
blue_objects = BlueManager()
and calling
MyModel.blue_objects.all()
would only return objects with colour as blue. Note, this is a very poor way to filter models!
One would usually need to modify a Manager interface if they were going to modify the QuerySets that a manager would usually return or if you needed to add "table" level queries (rather than regular django "row" level). The documentation for managers is quite complete and contains several examples.
Manager is some kind of 'gate' between application and database. One of nice thing is that you can define you own base queryset for model. For example: if you have model 'Book' with 'availability' field, you can prepare your own queryset, which filters specific kind of availability type:
models.py:
class AvailableBookManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
return super(AvailableBookManager, self).get_query_set().filter(availability=1)
class Book(models.Model):
(...)#fields definition
objects = models.Manager() #default manager
available_objects = AvailableBookManager() #own manager
and now you can use like this:
books = Book.available_objects.all()
instead of using:
books = Book.objects.filter(available=1)
Definition
From the docs:
A Manager is a Django class that provides the interface between database query operations and a Django model.
In other words, in a Django model, the manager is the interface that interacts with the database. For example, when you want to retrieve objects from your database, you need to construct a QuerySet via a Manager on your model class.
By default, the manager is available through the Model.objects property. This manager is the django.db.models.Manager. However, it is very simple to extend it and change the default manager.
Custom managers
From the docs:
You can use a custom Manager in a particular model by extending the base Manager class and instantiating your custom Manager in your model.
There are two reasons you might want to customize a Manager (none of them are exclusive):
to add extra Manager methods
to modify the initial QuerySet the Manager returns
Example: adding extra methods to a Manager
from django.db import models
class DocumentManager(models.Manager):
def pdfs(self):
return self.filter(file_type='pdf')
def smaller_than(self, size):
return self.filter(size__lt=size)
class Document(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=30)
size = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)
file_type = models.CharField(max_length=10, blank=True)
objects = DocumentManager()
def __str__(self) -> str:
return self.name
Example: modifying the initial QuerySet the Manager returns
from django.db import models
class AuthorManager(models.Manager):
def get_queryset(self):
return super().get_queryset().filter(first_name__startswith='M')
class Author(models.Model):
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
last_name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
email = models.EmailField()
objects = AuthorManager()
def __str__(self) -> str:
return f"{self.first_name} {self.last_name}"
Example: multiple managers at the same time
It is possible to have multiple managers for the same model.
from django.db import models
from django.db.models.functions import Length
class BookTitleManager(models.Manager):
def short_titles(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length('title')).filter(length__lte=20)
def long_titles(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length('title')).filter(length__gt=20, length__lte=30)
def very_long_titles(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length('title')).filter(length__gt=30)
def starts_with(self, letter):
return self.filter(title__startswith=letter)
class BookPagesManager(models.Manager):
def small_books(self):
return self.filter(pages__lt=200)
def medium_books(self):
return self.filter(pages__gte=200, pages__lt=300)
def large_books(self):
return self.filter(pages__gte=300, pages__lte=500)
class Book(models.Model):
title = models.CharField(max_length=255)
author = models.CharField(max_length=255)
pages = models.IntegerField()
objects = models.Manager()
titles = BookTitleManager()
sizes = BookPagesManager()
def __str__(self) -> str:
return f'{self.title} by {self.author}'
In the previous code sample, there are 3 managers: the default models.Manager, BookTitleManager and BookPagesManager assigned to objects, titles and sizes respectively.
The problem with the previous managers is that you cannot chain them as follows:
>>> Book.titles.long_titles().starts_with('P')
AttributeError: 'QuerySet' object has no attribute 'starts_with'
Example: Custom manager and queryset (chains are allowed)
If you want to chain methods defined in managers, you should define a custom QuerySet as follows:
from django.db import models
from django.db.models.functions import Length
class AuthorQuerySet(models.QuerySet):
def long_first_name(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length("first_name")).filter(length__gte=10)
def short_last_name(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length("last_name")).filter(length__lte=10)
class AuthorManager(models.Manager):
def get_queryset(self):
return AuthorQuerySet(self.model, using=self._db)
def long_first_name(self):
return self.get_queryset().long_first_name()
def short_last_name(self):
return self.get_queryset().short_last_name()
class Author(models.Model):
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
last_name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
email = models.EmailField()
objects = AuthorManager()
def __str__(self) -> str:
return f"{self.first_name} {self.last_name}"
Example: Custom queryset used as manager
When defining just custom QuerySets in the manager, it is possible to simply extend the QuerySet and set it as the manager.
from django.db import models
from django.db.models.functions import Length
class PublisherQuerySet(models.QuerySet):
def long_name(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length("name")).filter(length__gte=15)
def long_address(self):
return self.annotate(length=Length("address")).filter(length__gte=25)
def country_starts_with(self, letter):
return self.filter(country__startswith=letter)
class Publisher(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
address = models.CharField(max_length=255)
country = models.CharField(max_length=100)
objects = PublisherQuerySet.as_manager() # uses QuerySet as Manager
def __str__(self) -> str:
return self.name
Also to keep in mind
If you want to use objects as a field name, or if you want to use a name other than objects for the Manager, you can rename it on a per-model basis. To rename the Manager for a given class, define a class attribute of type models.Manager() on that model.
class Document(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=30)
size = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)
file_type = models.CharField(max_length=10, blank=True)
stuff = models.Manager()
def __str__(self) -> str:
return self.name
In the previous code sample, calling Document.objects will generate an AttributeError exception because the default manager has been renamed, what will work now is Document.stuff.
Managers are accessible only via model classes, rather than from model instances, to enforce a separation between “table-level” operations and “record-level” operations.
If a model has a ForeignKey, instances of the foreign-key model will have access to a Manager that returns all instances of the first model. By default, this Manager is named FOO_set, where FOO is the source model name, lowercased.
I'm looking to do this:
class Place(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=20)
rating = models.DecimalField()
class LongNamedRestaurant(Place): # Subclassing `Place`.
name = models.CharField(max_length=255) # Notice, I'm overriding `Place.name` to give it a longer length.
food_type = models.CharField(max_length=25)
This is the version I would like to use (although I'm open to any suggestion):
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/models/#id7
Is this supported in Django? If not, is there a way to achieve similar results?
Updated answer: as people noted in comments, the original answer wasn't properly answering the question. Indeed, only the LongNamedRestaurant model was created in database, Place was not.
A solution is to create an abstract model representing a "Place", eg. AbstractPlace, and inherit from it:
class AbstractPlace(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=20)
rating = models.DecimalField()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Place(AbstractPlace):
pass
class LongNamedRestaurant(AbstractPlace):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
food_type = models.CharField(max_length=25)
Please also read #Mark answer, he gives a great explanation why you can't change attributes inherited from a non-abstract class.
(Note this is only possible since Django 1.10: before Django 1.10, modifying an attribute inherited from an abstract class wasn't possible.)
Original answer
Since Django 1.10 it's
possible!
You just have to do what you asked for:
class Place(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=20)
rating = models.DecimalField()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class LongNamedRestaurant(Place): # Subclassing `Place`.
name = models.CharField(max_length=255) # Notice, I'm overriding `Place.name` to give it a longer length.
food_type = models.CharField(max_length=25)
No, it is not:
Field name “hiding” is not permitted
In normal Python class inheritance, it is permissible for a child
class to override any attribute from the parent class. In Django, this
is not permitted for attributes that are Field instances (at least,
not at the moment). If a base class has a field called author, you
cannot create another model field called author in any class that
inherits from that base class.
That is not possible unless abstract, and here is why: LongNamedRestaurant is also a Place, not only as a class but also in the database. The place-table contains an entry for every pure Place and for every LongNamedRestaurant. LongNamedRestaurant just creates an extra table with the food_type and a reference to the place table.
If you do Place.objects.all(), you also get every place that is a LongNamedRestaurant, and it will be an instance of Place (without the food_type). So Place.name and LongNamedRestaurant.name share the same database column, and must therefore be of the same type.
I think this makes sense for normal models: every restaurant is a place, and should have at least everything that place has. Maybe this consistency is also why it was not possible for abstract models before 1.10, although it would not give database problems there. As #lampslave remarks, it was made possible in 1.10. I would personally recommend care: if Sub.x overrides Super.x, make sure Sub.x is a subclass of Super.x, otherwise Sub cannot be used in place of Super.
Workarounds: You can create a custom user model (AUTH_USER_MODEL) which involves quite a bit of code duplication if you only need to change the email field. Alternatively you can leave email as it is and make sure it's required in all forms. This doesn't guarantee database integrity if other applications use it, and doesn't work the other way around (if you want to make username not required).
See https://stackoverflow.com/a/6379556/15690:
class BaseMessage(models.Model):
is_public = models.BooleanField(default=False)
# some more fields...
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Message(BaseMessage):
# some fields...
Message._meta.get_field('is_public').default = True
My solution is as simple as next monkey patching, notice how I changed max_length attribute of name field in LongNamedRestaurant model:
class Place(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=20)
class LongNamedRestaurant(Place):
food_type = models.CharField(max_length=25)
Place._meta.get_field('name').max_length = 255
Pasted your code into a fresh app, added app to INSTALLED_APPS and ran syncdb:
django.core.exceptions.FieldError: Local field 'name' in class 'LongNamedRestaurant' clashes with field of similar name from base class 'Place'
Looks like Django does not support that.
This supercool piece of code allows you to 'override' fields in abstract parent classes.
def AbstractClassWithoutFieldsNamed(cls, *excl):
"""
Removes unwanted fields from abstract base classes.
Usage::
>>> from oscar.apps.address.abstract_models import AbstractBillingAddress
>>> from koe.meta import AbstractClassWithoutFieldsNamed as without
>>> class BillingAddress(without(AbstractBillingAddress, 'phone_number')):
... pass
"""
if cls._meta.abstract:
remove_fields = [f for f in cls._meta.local_fields if f.name in excl]
for f in remove_fields:
cls._meta.local_fields.remove(f)
return cls
else:
raise Exception("Not an abstract model")
When the fields have been removed from the abstract parent class you are free to redefine them as you need.
This is not my own work. Original code from here: https://gist.github.com/specialunderwear/9d917ddacf3547b646ba
Maybe you could deal with contribute_to_class :
class LongNamedRestaurant(Place):
food_type = models.CharField(max_length=25)
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(LongNamedRestaurant, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
name.contribute_to_class(self, 'name')
Syncdb works fine. I dont tried this example, in my case I just override a constraint parameter so ... wait & see !
I know it's an old question, but i had a similar problem and found a workaround:
I had the following classes:
class CommonInfo(models.Model):
image = models.ImageField(blank=True, null=True, default="")
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Year(CommonInfo):
year = models.IntegerField()
But I wanted Year's inherited image-field to be required while keeping the image field of the superclass nullable. In the end I used ModelForms to enforce the image at the validation stage:
class YearForm(ModelForm):
class Meta:
model = Year
def clean(self):
if not self.cleaned_data['image'] or len(self.cleaned_data['image'])==0:
raise ValidationError("Please provide an image.")
return self.cleaned_data
admin.py:
class YearAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin):
form = YearForm
It seems this is only applicable for some situations (certainly where you need to enforce stricter rules on the subclass field).
Alternatively you can use the clean_<fieldname>() method instead of clean(), e.g. if a field town would be required to be filled in:
def clean_town(self):
town = self.cleaned_data["town"]
if not town or len(town) == 0:
raise forms.ValidationError("Please enter a town")
return town
You can not override Model fields, but its easily achieved by overriding/specifying clean() method. I had the issue with email field and wanted to make it unique on Model level and did it like this:
def clean(self):
"""
Make sure that email field is unique
"""
if MyUser.objects.filter(email=self.email):
raise ValidationError({'email': _('This email is already in use')})
The error message is then captured by Form field with name "email"