I read the following code for customizing Document model.
class DocumentQuerySet(models.QuerySet):
def pdfs(self):
return self.filter(file_type='pdf')
def smaller_than(self, size):
return self.filter(size__lt=size)
class DocumentManager(models.Manager):
def get_queryset(self):
return DocumentQuerySet(self.model, using=self._db) # Important!
def pdfs(self):
return self.get_queryset().pdfs()
def smaller_than(self, size):
return self.get_queryset().smaller_than(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() #overriding the default model manager
Now suppose i want to retreive files of type pdf and size less than 1000.
Then i need to do the following:
Document.objects.pdfs().smaller_than(1000)
But what's the use of doing this even when i could have simply obtained the desired result by filtering the default model manager 'objects' using the following command:
Document.objects.filter(file_type='pdf', size__lt=1000)
What is the difference in the execution of above two commands?
Manager and Queryset methods are defined and used in order to use repeatable code.
If your use case only happens once, perhaps you are better off being explicit in your query, however if you repeat the exact same code elsewhere, perhaps you are better off making it a manager/queryset method.
Related
I am trying to build a single course platorm where I will only hold lessons units materials where only people with membership will be able to see it , however when I try to do retrieve Lesson.course_allowed_mem_types.all() I got the following error 'ManyToManyDescriptor' object has no attribute 'all' , how can I fix this simple error?
class Lesson(models.Model):
content_title = models.CharField(max_length=120)
content_text = models.CharField(max_length=200)
thumbnail = models.ImageField(upload_to='static/xxx/xxx/xxx/xxx')
link = models.CharField(max_length=200, null=True)
allowed_memberships = models.ManyToManyField(Membership)
def __str__(self):
return self.content_title
views
def get_context_data(self, **kwargs):
context = super(bootCamp, self).get_context_data(**kwargs)
context['lessons'] = Lesson.objects.all()
user_membership = UserMembership.objects.filter(user=self.request.user).first()
user_membership_type = user_membership.membership.membership_type
course_allowed_mem_types = Lesson.allowed_memberships.all()
context['course_allowed_mem_types'] = course_allowed_mem_types
return context
You can query many-to-many related field only for model instance, not model class. It's not really clear what exactly is "all concrete allowed membership objects for a Lesson class" (Lesson.allowed_memberships.all()).
Is it "all membership objects related to any of existing lesson objects" or is it "all membership objects that can be related to a lesson object"?
Those are different queries, and Lesson.allowed_memberships.all() does not imply either, it's incorrect usage.
If you want the former, something like this could work
Membership.objects.filter(lesson__in=Lesson.objects.all())
(You already have this as context['lessons'] so use that instead, just showing the idea)
I think,
One lesson may have many memberships. so you are selecting all lessons with all memberships Lesson.allowed_memberships.all() .
Try selecting a single lesson then retrieve associated members
lesson = Lessons.objects.filter(pk=1)
course_allowed_mem_types = lesson.allowed_memberships.all()
If you want to create custom list like type, it is always a good idea to inherit from collections.abc.Iterable. It provides common operations required to work on such container types.
You can't just call .all() on any object/type, that type definition actually has to have all() method defined in class or parent class.
e.g.
class ListLike:
def __init__(self):
...
def all(self):
return some_iterator
I have a model named Run with a manager named RunManager and with a custom save() method as follows.
class RunManager(models.Manager):
use_for_related_fields = True
def get_queryset(self):
queryset = super(RunManager, self).get_queryset()
queryset = queryset.filter(archived=False)
return queryset
def unfiltered_runs(self):
queryset = super(RunManager, self).get_queryset()
return queryset
class Run(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=256)
archived = models.BooleanField(default=False)
objects = RunManager()
def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
# some business logic
super(Run, self).save(*args, **kwargs)
def archive(self):
# Some business logic
self.archived = True
self.save()
def recover_archived(self):
# Some business logic
self.archived = False
self.save()
This was an old code where the run.objects were used at several location, so to hide the archived runs I am using the RunManager.
Everything was working fine, but now we want to unarchive the runs. So I added the unfiltred_runs() method which shows the list of all the runs along with the archived runs. But when I run recove_archived() method i get following error
IntegrityError: UNIQUE constraint failed: run.id
I know the error is because the db is treating it as a new entry with same id.
I know I can completely override the save method but I want to avoid that.
So is there any way to make save method lookup in the unfiltered_runs() queryset instead of regular one.
By following #ivissani's suggestion I modified my recover_archived method as follows. And it is working flawlessly.
def recover_archived(self):
# Some business logic
Run.objects.unfiltered_runs().filter(pk=self.id).update(archived=False)
I am using Django rest framework 2.3
I have a class like this
class Quiz():
fields..
# A custom manager for result objects
class SavedOnceManager(models.Manager):
def filter(self, *args, **kwargs):
if not 'saved_once' in kwargs:
kwargs['saved_once'] = True
return super(SavedOnceManager, self).filter(*args, **kwargs)
class Result():
saved_once = models.NullBooleanField(default=False, db_index=True,
null=True)
quiz = models.ForeignKey(Quiz, related_name='result_set')
objects = SavedOnceManager()
As you see I have a custom manager on results so Result.objects.filter() will only return results that have save_once set to True
Now my Serializers look like this:
class ResultSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
fields...
class QuizSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
results = ResultSerializer(many=True, required=False, source='result_set')
Now if I serializer my quiz it would return only results that have saved_once set to True. But for a particular use case I want the serializer to return all objects. I have read that I can do that by passing a queryset parameter http://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/relations/ in (further notes section). However when I try this
results = ResultSerializer(many=True, required=False, source='result_set',
queryset=
Result.objects.filter(
saved_once__in=[True, False]))
I get TypeError: __init__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'queryset'
And looking at the source code of DRF(in my version atleast) it does not accept a queryset argument.
Looking for some guidance on this to see if this is possible... thanks!
In my opinion, modifying filter like this is not a very good practice. It is very difficult to write a solution for you when I cannot use filter on the Result model without this extra filtering happening. I would suggest not modifying filter in this manner and instead creating a custom manager method which allows you to apply your filter in an obvious way where it is needed, eg/
class SavedOnceManager(models.Manager):
def saved_once(self):
return self.get_queryset().filter('saved_once'=True)
Therefore, you can query either the saved_once rows or the unfiltered rows as you would expect:
Results.objects.all()
Results.objects.saved_once().all()
Here is one way which you can use an additional queryset inside a serializer. However, it looks to me that this most likely will not work for you if the default manager is somehow filtering out the saved_once objects. Hence, your problem lies elsewhere.
class QuizSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
results = serializers.SerializerMethodField()
def get_results(self, obj):
results = Result.objects.filter(id__in=obj.result_set)
return ResultSerializer(results, many=True).data
I'm trying to hold a kind of table of contents structure in my database. Simplified example:
models.py
class Section (models.Model):
title = models.CharField(max_length=80)
order = models.IntegerField()
class SectionClickable(Section):
link = models.CharField(max_length=80)
class SectionHeading(Section):
background_color = models.CharField(max_length=6)
views.py
sections = Section.objects.filter(title="Hello!")
for section in sections:
if(section.sectionheading):
logger.debug("It's a heading")
I need to do some processing operations if it's a SectionHeading instance, but (as in the Django manual), accessing section.sectionheading will throw a DoesNotExist error if the object is not of type SectionHeading.
I've been looking into alternatives to this kind of problem, and I'm skimming over Generic Foreign Keys in the contenttypes package. However, this seems like it would cause even more headaches at the Django Admin side of things. Could anyone advise on a better solution than the one above?
Edit: I avoided abstract inheritence because of the order field. I would have to join the two QuerySets together and sort them by order
well you could check the type:
if isinstance(section, SectionHeading)
but duck typing is generally preferred
edit:
actually, that probably won't work. the object will be a Section. but you can look for the attribute:
if hasattr(section, 'sectionheading')
or
try:
do_something_with(section.sectionheading)
except AttributeError:
pass # i guess it wasn't one of those
The solution I came up using involved an extra field pointing to the (rather useful) ContentType class:
class Section(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType,editable=False,null=True)
def __unicode__(self):
try:
return self.as_leaf_class().__unicode__()
except:
return self.name
def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
if(not self.content_type):
self.content_type = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(self.__class__)
super(Section, self).save(*args, **kwargs)
def as_leaf_class(self):
content_type = self.content_type
model = content_type.model_class()
if(model == Section):
return self
return model.objects.get(id=self.id)
If you're going through "base" object, I think this solution is pretty nice and comfortable to work with.
I've been using something similar to what second suggests in his edit:
class SomeBaseModel(models.Model):
reverse_name_cache = models.CharField(_('relation cache'), max_length=10,
null=True, editable=False)
def get_reverse_instance(self):
try:
return getattr(self, self.reverse_name_cache)
except AttributeError:
for name in ['sectionclickable', 'sectionheading']:
try:
i = getattr(self, name)
self.reverse_name_cache = name
return i
except ObjectDoesNotExist:
pass
Now, this isn't exactly pretty, but it returns the subclass instance from a central place so I don't need to wrap other statements with try. Perhaps the hardcoding of subclass reverse manager names could be avoided but this approach was enough for my needs.
OP here.
While second's answer is correct for the question, I wanted to add that I believe multi-table inheritence is an inefficient approach for this scenario. Accessing the attribute of the sub-class model would cause a query to occur - thus requiring a query for every row returned. Ouch. As far as I can tell, select_related doesn't work for multi-table inheritence yet.
I also ruled out ContentTypes because it wouldn't do it elegantly enough and seemed to require a lot of queries also.
I settled on using an abstract class:
class Section (models.Model):
title = models.CharField(max_length=80)
order = models.IntegerField()
class Meta:
abstract=True
ordering=['order']
Queried both tables:
section_clickables = SectionClickable.objects.filter(video=video)
section_headings= SectionHeading.objects.filter(video=video)
and joined the two querysets together
#Join querysets http://stackoverflow.com/questions/431628/how-to-combine-2-or-more-querysets-in-a-django-view
s = sorted(chain(section_headings, section_clickables), key=attrgetter('order'))
Lastly I made a template tag to check the instance:
from my.models import SectionHeading, SectionClickable
#register.filter()
def is_instance(obj, c):
try:
return isinstance(obj, eval(c))
except:
raise ObjectDoesNotExist('Class supplied to is_instance could not be found. Import it in the template tag file.')
so that in my template (HamlPy) I could do this:
- if s|is_instance:"SectionClickable"
%span {{s.title}}
- if s|is_instance:"SectionHeading"
%span{'style':'color: #{{s.color}};'}
{{s.title}}
The result is that I only used two queries, one to get the SectionClickable objects and one for the SectionHeading objects
Here's a Django model class I wrote. This class gets a keyerror when I call get_object_or_404 from Django (I conceive that keyerror is raised due to no kwargs being passed to __init__ by the get function, arguments are all positional). Interestingly, it does not get an error when I call get_object_or_404 from console.
I wonder why, and if the below code is the correct way (ie, using init to populate the link field) to construct this class.
class Link(models.Model)
event_type = models.IntegerField(choices=EVENT_TYPES)
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
created_on = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add = True)
link = models.CharField(max_length=30)
isActive = models.BooleanField(default=True)
def _generate_link(self):
prelink = str(self.user.id)+str(self.event_type)+str(self.created_on)
m = md5.new()
m.update(prelink)
return m.hexdigest()
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
self.user = kwargs['user'].pop()
self.event_type = kwargs['event_type'].pop()
self.link = self._generate_link()
super(Link,self).__init__(*args,**kwargs)
self.user = kwargs['user'].pop()
self.event_type = kwargs['event_type'].pop()
You're trying to retrieve an entry from the dictionary, and then call its pop method. If you want to remove and return an object from a dictionary, call dict.pop():
self.user = kwargs.pop('user')
Of course, this will fail with a KeyError when "user" is not present in kwargs. You'll want to provide a default value to pop:
self.user = kwargs.pop('user', None)
This means "if "user" is in the dictionary, remove and return it. Otherwise, return None".
Regarding the other two lines:
self.link = self._generate_link()
super(Link,self).__init__(*args,**kwargs)
super().__init__() will set link to something, probably None. I would reverse the lines, to something like this:
super(Link,self).__init__(*args,**kwargs)
self.link = self._generate_link()
You might want to add a test before setting the link, to see if it already exists (if self.link is not None: ...). That way, links you pass into the constructor won't be overwritten.
There's no reason to write your own __init__ for Django model classes. I think you'll be a lot happier without it.
Almost anything you think you want to do in __init__ can be better done in save.
I don't think you need the __init__ here at all.
You are always calculating the value of link when the class is instantiated. This means you ignore whatever is stored in the database. Since this is the case, why bother with a model field at all? You would be better making link a property, with the getter using the code from _generate_link.
#property
def link(self):
....
wonder why, and if the below code is the correct way (ie, using __init__ to populate the link field) to construct this class.
I once got some problems when I tried to overload __init__
In the maillist i got this answer
It's best not to overload it with your own
__init__. A better option is to hook into the post_init signal with a
custom method and in that method do your process() and
make_thumbnail() calls.
In your case the post_init-signal should do the trick and implementing __init__ shouldn't be necessary at all.
You could write something like this:
class Link(models.Model)
event_type = models.IntegerField(choices=EVENT_TYPES)
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
created_on = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add = True)
link = models.CharField(max_length=30)
isActive = models.BooleanField(default=True)
def create_link(self):
prelink = str(self.user.id)+str(self.event_type)+str(self.created_on)
m = md5.new()
m.update(prelink)
return m.hexdigest()
def post_link_init(sender, **kwargs):
kwargs['instance'].create_link()
post_init.connect(post_link_init, sender=Link)
>>> link = Link(event_type=1, user=aUser, created_on=datetime.now(), link='foo', isActive=True)
providing keyword unique for link = models.CharField(max_length=30, unique=True) could be helpful, too. If it is not provided, get_object_or_404 may won't work in case the same value in the link-field exists several times.
signals and unique in the django-docs