I have an var containing all documents from mongoDB as an object. The way I set this is like this:
questions = Questions.objects.order_by('-openDate')
This works fine. When called, the objects show the attributes I expect. But now I want to add an attribute to it. Its not defined in the database, but I will set it base on some simple python code. To break it down:
One of the fields is responses, which contain an userId and response.
By going through all responses:
for i in question.responses:
if i.id == current_user:
(Now the magic should happen)
Now comes what does not work. I want to add an attribute userResponded to the object. This way in the template I can simply ask if userResponded is true or false. To be clear, the userResponded should not be added to responses, but a new attribute.
Just to add to this, I already tried:
questions[0].test = 'test'
I expected it was now added to the first object in questions. However, this did not happen.
Please help, already stuck on this for way too long!
Related
I'm using Odoo 10. After a new user sign up (through localhost:8069/web/signup) i want him to be automatically allocated inside a group i created on my very own custom module (the user will need authentication from an admin later on so he can be converted to a regular portal user; after signup he will receive restricted access).
I have tried many things. My latest effort looks like this:
class RestrictAccessOnSignup(auth_signup_controller.AuthSignupHome):
def do_signup(self, *args):
super(RestrictAccessOnSignup, self).do_signup(*args)
request.env['res.groups'].sudo().write({'groups_id': 'group_unuser'})
Note that I have import odoo.addons.auth_signup.controllers.main as auth_signup_controller so that I can override the auth_signup controller.
I have located that method as the responsible for doing the signup. So I call it in my new method and then try to change the newly created user's group_id.
What i miss is a fundamental understanding of how to overwrite a field's value from another model inside a controller method context. I'm using the 'request' object although i'm not sure of it. I have seen people using 'self.pool['res.users'] (e.g.) for such purposes but i don't understand how to apply it inside my problem's context.
I believe, also, that there is a way to change the default group for a user after it is created (i would like to know), but i also want to understand how to solve the general problem (accessing and overwriting a field's value from another module).
Another weird thing is that the field groups_id does exist in 'res.users' model, but it does not appear as a column in my pgAdmin interface when i click to see the 'res.users' table... Any idea why?
Thanks a lot!
i don't know if after calling :
super(RestrictAccessOnSignup,self).do_signup(*args)
you will have access to user record in request object but if so just add
the group to user like this, if not you have to find where the user record or id is saved after calling do_signup because you need to update that record to ad this group.
# create env variable i hate typing even i'm typing here ^^
env = request.env
env.user.sudo().write({'groups_id': [
# in odoo relation field accept a list of commands
# command 4 means add the id in the second position must be an integer
# ref return an object so we return the id
( 4, env.ref('your_module_name.group_unuser').id),
]
})
and if changes are not committed in database you may need to commit them
request.env.cr.commit()
Note: self.env.ref you must pass the full xmlID.
This is what worked for me:
def do_signup(self, *args):
super(RestrictAccessOnSignup, self).do_signup(*args)
group_id = request.env['ir.model.data'].get_object('academy2', 'group_unuser')
group_id.sudo().write({'users': [(4, request.env.uid)]})
In the get_object i pass as arguments the 'module' and the 'xmlID' of the group i want to fetch.
It is still not clear to me why 'ir.model.data' is the environment used, but this works as a charm. Please note that here we are adding a user to the group, and not a group to the user, and to me that actually makes more sense.
Any further elucidation or parallel solutions are welcome, the methods aren't as clear to me as they should be.
thanks.
Sorry for noobster question again.
But I'm trying to do some very easy stuff here, and I don't know how. Documentation gives me hints which do not work, or apply.
I recieve a POST request and grab a variable out of it. It says "name".
I have to search all over my entities Object (for example) and find out if there's one that has the same name. Is there's none, I must create a new Entity with this name. Easy it may look, but I keep Failing.
Would really appreciate any help.
My code currently is this one:
objects_qry = Object.query(Object.name == data["name"])
if (not objects_qry ):
obj = Object()
obj .name = data["name"]
obj .put()
class Object(ndb.Model):
name = ndb.StringProperty()
Using a query to perform this operation is really inefficient.
In addition your code is possibly unreliable, if name doesn't exist and you have two requests at the same time for name you could end up with two records. And you can't tell because your query only returns the first entity with the name property equal to some value.
Because you expect only one entity for name a query is expensive and inefficient.
So you have two choices you can use get_or_insert or just do a get, and if you have now value create a new entity.
Any way here is a couple of code samples using the name as part of the key.
name = data['name']
entity = Object.get_or_insert(name)
or
entity = Object.get_by_id(name)
if not entity:
entity = Object(id=name)
entity.put()
Calling .query just creates a query object, it doesn't execute it, so trying to evaluate is as a boolean is wrong. Query object have methods, fetch and get that, respectively, return a list of matching entities, or just one entity.
So your code could be re-written:
objects_qry = Object.query(Object.name == data["name"])
existing_object = objects_qry.get()
if not existing_object:
obj = Object()
obj.name = data["name"]
obj.put()
That said, Tim's point in the comments about using the ID instead of a property makes sense if you really care about names being unique - the code above wouldn't stop two simultaneous requests from creating entities with the same name.
I am trying to check if the session does have anything in it. What I did is:
if request.session:
# do something
but it is not working. Is there any way of knowing whether the session contains something at that moment?
If I do request.session['some_name'], it works, but in some cases, I just need to know if the session is empty or not.
Asking with some specific names is not always a wanted thing.
Eg. if there is no session, it returns an error, since some_name doesn't exist.
request.session is an instance of SessionBase object which behaves like dictionary but it it is not a dictionary. This object has a "private" field ( actually it's a property ) called _session which is a dictionary which holds all data.
The reason for that is that Django does not load session until you call request.session[key]. It is lazily instantiated.
So you can try doing that:
if request.session._session:
# do something
or you can do it by looking at keys like this:
if request.session.keys():
# do something
Note how .keys() works:
django/contrib/sessions/backends/base.py
class SessionBase(object):
# some code
def keys(self):
return self._session.keys()
# some code
I always recommend reading the source code directly.
Nowadays there's a convenience method on the session object
request.session.is_empty()
I've been struggling for this issue for a few hours - I know there's probably a simple solution that I'm overlooking.
I have a one to many relationship with my models.
I have need to return all rows of one object with the rows for the related object.
In a sense I have this:
object
object
object_relationship.property
object_relationship.property
object
object_relationship.property
object
Now - I can run through all of these fine, but I run into an issue when I want to send these back to the html template.
I can send the object back - but how do I send the object_relationship back in the order that I have it above?
Does this make sense?
You might not need to worry too much about this, acutally... look at these models:
class Venue(base.NamedEntity, HasPerformances, HasUrl, HasLocation):
city = db.ReferenceProperty(City, collection_name='venues')
url = db.StringProperty(required=True, validator=validators.validate_url)
location = db.GeoPtProperty()
class Performance(base.Entity):
show = db.ReferenceProperty(Show, collection_name='performances', required=True)
utc_date_time = db.DateTimeProperty(required=True)
venue = db.ReferenceProperty(Venue, collection_name='performances', required=True)
In a case like this, nothing stops you from using venue.performances from either code or templates and treating it as a list. The API will automatically fire queries as needed to fetch the actual objects. The same thing goes for performance.venue.
The only problem here is performance - you've got a variant of the n+1 problem to deal with. There are workarounds, though, like this article by Nick Johnson. I'd suggest reading the API code too... it makes for interesting reading how the property get is captured and dereferenced.
My first suggestion is to denormalize the data if you are going to do many reports like that. For example, maybe you could include object.name on the object_relationship entity.
That said, you could send a list of dicts to your template, so maybe something like:
data = []
for entity in your_query:
children = [{'name': child.name} for child in entity.object_relation]
data.append({'name': object.name,
'children': children,
...
})
Then pass the data list to your template, and process it.
Please note, this will perform very badly. It will execute another query for every one of the items in your first query. Use Appstats to profile your app.
i want to know if db.run_in_transaction() acts as a lock for Data store operations
and helps in case of concurrent access on same entity.
Does in following code it is guarantied that a concurrent access will not cause a race and instead of creating new entity it will not do a over-write
Is db.run_in_transaction() correct/best way to do so
in following code i m trying to create new unique entity with following code
def txn(charmer=None):
new = None
key = my_magic() + random_part()
sk = Snake.get_by_name(key)
if not sk:
new = Snake(key_name=key, charmer= charmer)
new.put()
return new
db.run_in_transaction(txn, charmer)
That is a safe method. Should the same name get generated twice, only one entity would be created.
It sounds like you have already looked at the transactions documentation. There is also a more detailed description.
Check out the docs (specifically the equivalent code) on Model.get_or_insert, it answers exactly the question you are asking:
The get and subsequent (possible) put
are wrapped in a transaction to ensure
atomicity. Ths means that
get_or_insert() will never overwrite
an existing entity, and will insert a
new entity if and only if no entity
with the given kind and name exists.
What you've done is right and sort of duplicates the Model.get_or_insert, like Robert already explained.
I don't know if this can be called a 'lock'... the way this works is optimistic concurrency - the operation will execute assuming that no one else is trying to do the same thing at the same time, and if someone is, it will give you an exception. You'll need to figure out what you want to do in that case. Maybe ask the user to choose a new name?