I am currently working on a Django 2+ project involving a blockchain, and I want to make copies of some of my object's states into that blockchain.
Basically, I have a model (say "contract") that has a list of several "signature" objects.
I want to make a snapshot of that contract, with the signatures. What I am basically doing is taking the contract at some point in time (when it's created for example) and building a JSON from it.
My problem is: I want to update that snapshot anytime a signature is added/updated/deleted, and each time the contract is modified.
The intuitive solution would be to override each "delete", "create", "update" of each of the models involved in that snapshot, and pray that all of them the are implemented right, and that I didn't forget any. But I think that this is not scalable at all, hard to debug and ton maintain.
I have thought of a solution that might be more centralized: using a periodical job to get the last update date of my object, compare it to the date of my snapshot, and update the snapshot if necessary.
However with that solution, I can identify changes when objects are modified or created, but not when they are deleted.
So, this is my big question mark: how with django can you identify deletions in relationships, without any prior context, just by looking at the current database's state ? Is there a django module to record deleted objects ? What are your thoughts on my issue ?
All right?
I think that, as I understand your problem, you are in need of a module like Django Signals, which listens for changes in the database and, when identified (and if all the desired conditions are met), executes certain commands in your application ( even be able to execute in the database).
This is the most recent documentation:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.1/topics/signals/
Related
I understand that this question has, in essence, already been asked, but that question did not have an unequivocal answer, so please bear with me.
Background: In my company, we use Perforce submission numbers as part of our versioning. Regardless of whether this is a correct method or not, that is how things are. Currently, many developers do separate submissions for code and documentation: first the code and then the documentation to update the client-facing docs with what the new version numbers should be. I would like to streamline this process.
My thoughts are as follows: create a Perforce trigger (which runs on the server side) which scans the submitted documentation files (such as .txt) for a unique term (such as #####PERFORCE##CHANGELIST##NUMBER###ROFL###LOL###WHATEVER#####) and then replaces it with the value of what the change list would be when submitted. I already know how to determine this value. What I cannot figure out, is how or where to update the files.
I have already determined that using the change-content trigger (whether possible or not), which
"fire[s] after changelist creation and file transfer, but prior to committing the submit to the database",
is the way to go. At this point the files need to exist somewhere on the server. How do I determine the (temporary?) location of these files from within, say, a Python script so that I can update or sed to replace the placeholder value with the intended value? The online documentation for Perforce which I have found so far have not been very explicit on whether this is possible or how the mechanics of a submission at this stage would work.
EDIT
Basically what I am looking for is RCS-like functionality, but without the unsightly special character sequences which accompany it. After more digging, what I am asking is the same as this question. However I believe that this must be possible, because the trigger is running on the server side and the files had already been transferred to the server. They must therefore be accessible by the script.
EXAMPLE
Consider the following snippet from a release notes document:
[#####PERFORCE##CHANGELIST##NUMBER###ROFL###LOL###WHATEVER#####] Added a cool new feature. Early retirement is in sight.
[52702] Fixed a really annoying bug. Many lives saved.
[52686] Fixed an annoying bug.
This is what the user submits. I then want the trigger to intercept this file during the submission process (as mentioned, at the change-content stage) and alter it so that what is eventually stored within Perforce looks like this:
[52738] Added a cool new feature. Early retirement is in sight.
[52702] Fixed a really annoying bug. Many lives saved.
[52686] Fixed an annoying bug.
Where 52738 is the final change list number of what the user submitted. (As mentioned, I can already determine this number, so please do dwell on this point.) I.e., what the user sees on the Perforce client console is.
Changelist 52733 renamed 52738.
Submitted change 52738.
Are you trying to replace the content of pending changelist files that were edited on a different client workspace (and different user)?
What type of information are you trying to replace in the documentation files? For example,
is it a date, username like with RCS keyword expansion? http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4guide/appendix.filetypes.html#DB5-18921
I want to get better clarification on what you are trying to accomplish in case there is another way to do what you want.
Depending on what you are trying to do, you may want to consider shelving ( http://www.perforce.com/perforce/doc.current/manuals/p4guide/chapter.files.html#d0e5537 )
Also, there is an existing Perforce enhancement request I can add your information to,
regarding client side triggers to modify files on the client side prior to submit. If it becomes implemented, you will be notified by email.
99w,
I have also added you to an existing enhancement request for Customizable RCS keywords, along
with the example you provided.
Short of using a post-command trigger to edit the archive content directly and then update the checksum in the database, there is currently not a way to update the file content with the custom-edited final changelist number.
One of the things I learned very early on in programming was to keep out of interrupt level as much as possible, and especially don't do stuff in interrupt that requires resources that can hang the system. I totally get that you want to resolve the internal labeling in sequence, but a better way to do it may be to just set up the edit during the trigger so that a post trigger tool can perform the file modification.
Correct me if I'm looking at this wrong, but there seems a bit of irony, or perhaps recursion, if you are trying to make a file change during the course of submitting a file change. It might be better to have a second change list that is reserved for the log. You always know where that file is, in your local file space. That said, ktext files and $ fields may be able to help.
I am writing a reusable django application for returning json result for jquery ui autocomplete.
Currently i am storing the Class/function for getting the result in a dictionary with a unique key for each class/function.
When a request comes then I selects the corresponding class/function from the dict and returns the output.
My query is whether is the best practice to do the above or are there some other tricks to obtains the same result.
Sample GIST : https://gist.github.com/ajumell/5483685
You seem to be talking about a form of memoization.
This is OK, as long as you don't rely on that result being in the dictionary. This is because the memory will be local to each process, and you can't guarantee subsequent requests being handled by the same process. But if you have a fallback where you generate the result, this is a perfectly good optimization.
That's a very general question. It primary depends on the infrastructure of your code. The way your class and models are defined and the dynamics of the application.
Second, is important to have into account the resources of the server where your application is running. How much memory do you have available, and how much disk space so you can take into account what would be better for the application.
Last but not least, it's important to take into account how much operations does it need to put all these resources in memory. Memory is volatile, so if your application restarts you'll have to instantiate all the classes again and maybe this is to much work.
Resuming, as an optimization is very good choice to keep in memory objects that are queried often (that's what cache is all about) but you have to take into account all of the previous stuff.
Storing a series of functions in a dictionary and conditionally selecting one based on the request is a perfectly acceptable way to handle it.
If you would like a more specific answer it would be very helpful to post your actual code. And secondly, this might be better suited to codereview.stackexchange
I do run parallel write requests on my ZODB. I do have multiple BTree instances inside my ZODB. Once the server accesses the same objects inside such a BTree, I get a ConflictError for the IOBucket class. For all my Django bases classes I do have _p_resolveconflict set up, but can't implement it for IOBucket 'cause its a C based class.
I did a deeper analysis, but still don't understand why it complains about the IOBucket class and what it writes into it. Additionally, what would be the right strategy to resolve it?
Thousand thanks for any help!
IOBucket is part of the persistence structure of a BTree; it exists to try and reduce conflict errors, and it does try and resolve conflicts where possible.
That said, conflicts are not always avoidable, and you should restart your transaction. In Zope, for example, the whole request is re-run up to 5 times if a ConflictError is raised. Conflicts are ZODB's way of handling the (hopefully rare) occasion where two different requests tried to change the exact same data structure.
Restarting your transaction means calling transaction.begin() and applying the same changes again. The .begin() will fetch any changes made by the other process and your commit will be based on the fresh data.
I have something of a master table of Persons. Everything in my Django app some relates to one or more People, either directly or through long fk chains. Also, all my models have the standard bookkeeping fields 'created_at' and 'updated_at'. I want to add a field on my Person table called 'last_active_at', mostly for raw sql ordering purposes.
Creating or editing certain related models produces new timestamps for those objects. I need to somehow update Person.'last_active_at' with those values. Functionally, this isn't too hard to accomplish, but I'm concerned about undue stress on the app.
My two greatest causes of concern are that I'm restricted to a real db field--I can't assign a function to the Person table as a #property--and one of these 'activity' models receives and processes new instances from a foreign datasource I have no control over, sporadically receiving a lot of data at once.
My first thought was to add a post_save hook to the 'activity' models. Still seems like my best option, but I know nothing about them, how hard they hit the db, etc.
My second thought was to write some sort of script that goes through the day's activity and updates those models over the night. My employers a 'live'er stream, though.
My third thought was to modify the post_save algo to check if the 'updated_at' is less than half an hour from the Person's 'last_active_at', and not update the person if true.
Are my thoughts tending in a scalable direction? Are there other approaches I should pursue?
It is said that premature optimization is the mother of all problems. You should start with the dumbest implementation (update it every time), and then measure and - if needed - replace it with something more efficient.
First of all, let's put a method to update the last_active_at field on Person. That way, all the updating logic itself is concentrated here, and we can easily modify it later.
The signals are quite easy to use : it's just about declaring a function and registering it as a receiver, and it will be ran each time the signal is emitted. See the documentation for the full explanation, but here is what it might look like :
from django.db.models.signals import post_save
from django.dispatch import receiver
#receiver(post_save, sender=RelatedModel)
def my_handler(sender, **kwargs):
# sender is the object being saved
person = # Person to be updated
person.update_activity()
As for the updating itself, start with the dumbest way to do it.
def update_activity(self):
self.last_active_at = now()
Then measure and decide if it's a problem or not. If it's a problem, some of the things you can do are :
Check if the previous update is recent before updating again. Might be useless if a read to you database is not faster than a write. Not a problem if you use a cache.
Write it down somewhere for a deferred process to update later. No need to be daily : if the problem is that you have 100 updates per seconds, you can just have a script update the database every 10 seconds, or every minutes. You can probably find a good performance/uptodatiness trade-off using this technique.
These are just some though based on what you proposed, but the right choice depends on the kind of figures you have. Determine what kind of load you'll have, what kind of reaction time is needed for that field, and experiment.
I'm using SQLAlchemy's declarative extension. I'd like all changes to tables logs, including changes in many-to-many relationships (mapping tables). Each table should have a separate "log" table with a similar schema, but additional columns specifying when the change was made, who made the change, etc.
My programming model would be something like this:
row.foo = 1
row.log_version(username, change_description, ...)
Ideally, the system wouldn't allow the transaction to commit without row.log_version being called.
Thoughts?
There are too many questions in one, so they that full answers to all them won't fit StackOverflow answer format. I'll try to describe hints in short, so ask separate question for them if it's not enough.
Assigning user and description to transaction
The most popular way to do so is assigning user (and other info) to some global object (threading.local() in threaded application). This is very bad way, that causes hard to discover bugs.
A better way is assigning user to the session. This is OK when session is created for each web request (in fact, it's the best design for application with authentication anyway), since there is the only user using this session. But passing description this way is not as good.
And my favorite solution is to extent Session.commit() method to accept optional user (and probably other info) parameter and assign it current transaction. This is the most flexible, and it suites well to pass description too. Note that info is bound to single transaction and is passed in obvious way when transaction is closed.
Discovering changes
There is a sqlalchemy.org.attributes.instance_state(obj) contains all information you need. The most useful for you is probably state.committed_state dictionary which contains original state for changed fields (including many-to-many relations!). There is also state.get_history() method (or sqlalchemy.org.attributes.get_history() function) returning a history object with has_changes() method and added and deleted properties for new and old value respectively. In later case use state.manager.keys() (or state.manager.attributes) to get a list of all fields.
Automatically storing changes
SQLAlchemy supports mapper extension that can provide hooks before and after update, insert and delete. You need to provide your own extension with all before hooks (you can't use after since the state of objects is changed on flush). For declarative extension it's easy to write a subclass of DeclarativeMeta that adds a mapper extension for all your models. Note that you have to flush changes twice if you use mapped objects for log, since a unit of work doesn't account objects created in hooks.
We have a pretty comprehensive "versioning" recipe at http://www.sqlalchemy.org/trac/wiki/UsageRecipes/LogVersions . It seems some other users have contributed some variants on it. The mechanics of "add a row when something changes at the ORM level" are all there.
Alternatively you can also intercept at the execution level using ConnectionProxy, search through the SQLA docs for how to use that.
edit: versioning is now an example included with SQLA: http://docs.sqlalchemy.org/en/rel_0_8/orm/examples.html#versioned-objects