Actually I have two things that don't seem to work. I'll list couple of models and their dependencies (shortened). The StudentGroup has students (which may be active/inactive), and messages, which are listed as chat.
In views.py, when I call delete_group(), I want to make all students inactive and delete all of the messages relevant to the group.
class StudentsGroup(models.Model):
students = models.ManyToManyField(User,limit_choices_to={'is_staff': False}, related_name="user_groups",blank=True)
finished = models.ManyToManyField(User,limit_choices_to={'is_staff': False}, related_name="finished_user_groups",blank=True)
class Message(models.Model):
group=models.ForeignKey(StudentsGroup)
def delete_group(request,group):
Message.objects.filter(group=group).delete()
groupl=StudentsGroup.objects.get(id=group)
for s in group1.students.all():
groupl.finished.add(s)
group1.save()
Nothing changes. I've tried similar things in console and it seemed to be ok. Tried bunch of similar code.
Tried to add makemigrations to the server restarting but still no result.
Kinda noob in django and webdev overall, any help would be appreciated.
In your line
Message.objects.filter(group=group).delete()
it looks like you haven't yet converted group from the raw ID value to an actual StudentGroup instance. If group is supplied to the function as a StudentGroup instance, then this should work. If, as I suspect, group is just a raw ID value, then your filter queries should be:
Message.objects.filter(group_id=group).delete()
It's nicer however to work with objects rather than IDs. Try instead doing this:
group = StudentGroup.objects.get(id=group)
Message.objects.filter(group=group).delete()
Then you can do other things like group = get_object_or_404(StudentGroup, id=group).
As for the second part, moving the Students to the group's finished list, your code looks reasonable, though you don't need the .save() part. I suspect the errors may be due to the object not being correctly instantiated yet, as with above.
However you should be able to do all this in a single line in Django 1.9+, see https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ref/models/relations/#django.db.models.fields.related.RelatedManager.add
group1.finished.add(*list(group1.students.all()))
Related
I want to order the result of my mongoengine call on two different fields.
Open. This has status True or False. I want this because I want to
display the open questions first
Opendate. Because I want to newest questions to show on top.
Combined this should create a list where I can see on top the open questions (ordered by creation date) and than the already closed questions, also ordered by creationdate.
The code I started with is:
To call the API:
questions = Questions.questions_of_user
To handle the call:
#queryset_manager
def questions_of_user(doc_cls, queryset):
return queryset.filter(questioner=current_user.id).order_by('-openDate')
My first suggestion was to just add 'status' to the order_by (maybe with or without + or - ) would do it. But so far no luck.
Than I tried to only order by the open field, because I thought I was just making an mistake combining the two. So I got this:
#queryset_manager
def questions_of_user(doc_cls, queryset):
return queryset.filter(questioner=current_user.id).order_by('-open')
That however did not work as well. I hope someone can help me out. Thanks in advance
More than one key can be passed in the order_by method of the queryset.
queryset.filter(questioner=current_user.id).order_by('-open', '-openDate')
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.
Working a django project and trying to speed up the calls. I noticed that Django automatically does a second query to evaulate any foreign key relationships. For instance if my models look like:
Model Person:
name = model.CharField("blah")
Model Address:
person = model.ForeignKey(Person)
Then I make:
p1 = Person("Bob")
address1 = Address(p1)
print (p1.id) #let it be 1 cause it is the first entry
then when I call:
address1.objects.filter(person_id = "1")
I get:
Query #1: SELECT address.id, address.person_id FROM address
Query #2: SELECT person.id, person.name FROM person
I want to get rid of the 2nd call, query #2. I have tried using "defer" from django documentation, but that did not work (in fact it makes even more calls). "values" is a possibility but in actual practice, there are many more fields I want to pull. The only thing I want it to do is not evaluate the FOREIGN KEY. I would be happy to get the person_id back, or not. This drastically reduces the runtime especially when I do a command like: Address.objects.all(), because it Django evaluates every foreign key.
Having just seen your other question on the same issue, I'm going to guess that you have defined a __unicode__ method that references the ForeignKey field. If you query for some objects in the shell and output them, the __unicode__ method will be called, which requires a query to get the ForeignKey. The solution is to either rewrite that method so it doesn't need that reference, or - as I say in the other question - use select_related().
Next time, please provide full code, including some that actually demonstrates the problem you are having.
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?