How to get a document by its primary key in mongoengine? - python

I'm porting an application from App Engine's ndb to mongoengine. ndb provides the Model.get_by_id method, and I'd like to implement this in terms of mongoengine. So how do you get a document by its automatically generated id, or by whatever field has primary_key set to True?

You can use with_id():
class MyDocument(Document):
...
#classmethod
def get_by_id(cls, id):
return cls.objects.with_id(id)
This will return the document instance if it exists or None if it doesn't.

Check out http://docs.mongoengine.org/guide/querying.html
Answer is simple:
Model.objects(id='your-id')
I presume that you know the name of the primary key field.

Use with_id. It's specialized for that purpose.
Model.objects.with_id('your-id')
It returns None if no object is found.
But ensure you're not setting filter (as if it was filter method) because it raises InvalidQueryError.

Related

how to get only one column from a entire table using foreign key in Django

I'm working on a Django project. where I need to map the fields using foreign key.
how to add only one field instead of whole table using foreign key ?
You can implement the __str__ method to specify how it should show the Developer object:
class Developers(models.Model):
# …
def __str__(self):
return self.Developer_Name
Note: normally a Django model is given a singular name, so Developer instead of Developers.
Note: normally the name of the fields in a Django model are written in snake_case, not PascalCase, so it should be: developer_name instead of Developer_Name.

How does Django foreign key access work

Say I have a model like this.
class Job(models.Model):
client = models.ForeignKey(Contacts, null=True)
and lets say I have job j. I know I can access the client belonging to j like this
j.client
but there is also
j.client_id
So my question is how does accessing j.client work?
Does django store client__id then when j.client is called it does a query to find the correct object?
Or is the object reference stored to j and accessing client__id is getting the id from the Contact object?
I've looked around the source code a bit but couldn't find the answer to my question
What you are probably talking about is client and client_id (single underscore).
The client_id attribute is a regular (integer) attribute. This is the foreign key that is saved to the database. You will only ever see a client_id column in the database, even though you specify the ForeignKey as client.
The client attribute is an object descriptor instance. It is a special class that overrides the __get__ and __set__ methods, so settings and accessing that attributes invokes that class's methods. This is the magic that gives you access to the actual related model instance. __get__ will retrieve the correct model instance from the database if it isn't loaded already, based on the client_id attribute. __set__ will also set the client_id attribute to the primary key of the related object, so that client_id is always up-to-date.
Note that this attribute is also available in query lookups, and is quite handy. E.g., if you have just the primary key of a foreign object, and not the model instance itself, the following queries look very similar:
job = Job.objects.filter(client__id=pk)
job = Job.objects.filter(client_id=pk)
However, underneath the first query accesses an attribute on the related object (double underscore) and performs an OUTER JOIN. The second query only ever accesses a local attribute, thus not having to perform the OUTER JOIN statement and saving performance.
This is explained in the docs:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#database-representation
In the database there is only client_id field (single underscore)
On the model instance you will have client attribute, when you access it this will cause Django to load the related object from the db and instantiate as another model instance.
You will also have client_id attribute (one underscore) which has the primary key value of the related object, as stored in the db field.
When doing ORM queries you are able to use client__id (double underscore) syntax to lookup against fields on the related model, eg you could also do client__name if Client model had a name field. This will become a SQL JOIN query across both models.
eg
Job.objects.get(client__id=1)
Job.objects.filter(client__name='John')
client = Client.objects.get(pk=1)
Job.objects.get(client=client)
j.client gives you the models.Model object. You can access it's properties like ...
client = j.client
id = client.id
name = client.name
But there should not be a j.client__id field. You should use j.client.id to get the id field. Although you can use j.client__id field to do filters and such.
So,
id = j.client.id # good
id = j.client__id # bad
and
job = Job.objects.get(client__id=1) # good
job = Job.objects.get(client.id=1) # bad

Django ForeignKey which does not require referential integrity?

I'd like to set up a ForeignKey field in a django model which points to another table some of the time. But I want it to be okay to insert an id into this field which refers to an entry in the other table which might not be there. So if the row exists in the other table, I'd like to get all the benefits of the ForeignKey relationship. But if not, I'd like this treated as just a number.
Is this possible? Is this what Generic relations are for?
This question was asked a long time ago, but for newcomers there is now a built in way to handle this by setting db_constraint=False on your ForeignKey:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#django.db.models.ForeignKey.db_constraint
customer = models.ForeignKey('Customer', db_constraint=False)
or if you want to to be nullable as well as not enforcing referential integrity:
customer = models.ForeignKey('Customer', null=True, blank=True, db_constraint=False)
We use this in cases where we cannot guarantee that the relations will get created in the right order.
EDIT: update link
I'm new to Django, so I don't now if it provides what you want out-of-the-box. I thought of something like this:
from django.db import models
class YourModel(models.Model):
my_fk = models.PositiveIntegerField()
def set_fk_obj(self, obj):
my_fk = obj.id
def get_fk_obj(self):
if my_fk == None:
return None
try:
obj = YourFkModel.objects.get(pk = self.my_fk)
return obj
except YourFkModel.DoesNotExist:
return None
I don't know if you use the contrib admin app. Using PositiveIntegerField instead of ForeignKey the field would be rendered with a text field on the admin site.
This is probably as simple as declaring a ForeignKey and creating the column without actually declaring it as a FOREIGN KEY. That way, you'll get o.obj_id, o.obj will work if the object exists, and--I think--raise an exception if you try to load an object that doesn't actually exist (probably DoesNotExist).
However, I don't think there's any way to make syncdb do this for you. I found syncdb to be limiting to the point of being useless, so I bypass it entirely and create the schema with my own code. You can use syncdb to create the database, then alter the table directly, eg. ALTER TABLE tablename DROP CONSTRAINT fk_constraint_name.
You also inherently lose ON DELETE CASCADE and all referential integrity checking, of course.
To do the solution by #Glenn Maynard via South, generate an empty South migration:
python manage.py schemamigration myapp name_of_migration --empty
Edit the migration file then run it:
def forwards(self, orm):
db.delete_foreign_key('table_name', 'field_name')
def backwards(self, orm):
sql = db.foreign_key_sql('table_name', 'field_name', 'foreign_table_name', 'foreign_field_name')
db.execute(sql)
Source article
(Note: It might help if you explain why you want this. There might be a better way to approach the underlying problem.)
Is this possible?
Not with ForeignKey alone, because you're overloading the column values with two different meanings, without a reliable way of distinguishing them. (For example, what would happen if a new entry in the target table is created with a primary key matching old entries in the referencing table? What would happen to these old referencing entries when the new target entry is deleted?)
The usual ad hoc solution to this problem is to define a "type" or "tag" column alongside the foreign key, to distinguish the different meanings (but see below).
Is this what Generic relations are for?
Yes, partly.
GenericForeignKey is just a Django convenience helper for the pattern above; it pairs a foreign key with a type tag that identifies which table/model it refers to (using the model's associated ContentType; see contenttypes)
Example:
class Foo(models.Model):
other_type = models.ForeignKey('contenttypes.ContentType', null=True)
other_id = models.PositiveIntegerField()
# Optional accessor, not a stored column
other = generic.GenericForeignKey('other_type', 'other_id')
This will allow you use other like a ForeignKey, to refer to instances of your other model. (In the background, GenericForeignKey gets and sets other_type and other_id for you.)
To represent a number that isn't a reference, you would set other_type to None, and just use other_id directly. In this case, trying to access other will always return None, instead of raising DoesNotExist (or returning an unintended object, due to id collision).
tablename= columnname.ForeignKey('table', null=True, blank=True, db_constraint=False)
use this in your program

Django BigInteger auto-increment field as primary key?

I'm currently building a project which involves a lot of collective intelligence. Every user visiting the web site gets created a unique profile and their data is later used to calculate best matches for themselves and other users.
By default, Django creates an INT(11) id field to handle models primary keys. I'm concerned with this being overflown very quickly (i.e. ~2.4b devices visiting the page without prior cookie set up). How can I change it to be represented as BIGINT in MySQL and long() inside Django itself?
I've found I could do the following (http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#bigintegerfield):
class MyProfile(models.Model):
id = BigIntegerField(primary_key=True)
But is there a way to make it autoincrement, like usual id fields? Additionally, can I make it unsigned so that I get more space to fill in?
Thanks!
Django now has a BigAutoField built in if you are using Django 1.10:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/ref/models/fields/#bigautofield
Inspired by lfagundes but with a small but important correction:
class BigAutoField(fields.AutoField):
def db_type(self, connection): # pylint: disable=W0621
if 'mysql' in connection.__class__.__module__:
return 'bigint AUTO_INCREMENT'
return super(BigAutoField, self).db_type(connection)
add_introspection_rules([], [r"^a\.b\.c\.BigAutoField"])
Notice instead of extending BigIntegerField, I am extending AutoField. This is an important distinction. With AutoField, Django will retrieve the AUTO INCREMENTed id from the database, whereas BigInteger will not.
One concern when changing from BigIntegerField to AutoField was the casting of the data to an int in AutoField.
Notice from Django's AutoField:
def to_python(self, value):
if value is None:
return value
try:
return int(value)
except (TypeError, ValueError):
msg = self.error_messages['invalid'] % str(value)
raise exceptions.ValidationError(msg)
and
def get_prep_value(self, value):
if value is None:
return None
return int(value)
It turns out this is OK, as verified in a python shell:
>>> l2 = 99999999999999999999999999999
>>> type(l2)
<type 'long'>
>>> int(l2)
99999999999999999999999999999L
>>> type(l2)
<type 'long'>
>>> type(int(l2))
<type 'long'>
In other words, casting to an int will not truncate the number, nor will it change the underlying type.
NOTE: This answer as modified, according to Larry's code. Previous solution extended fields.BigIntegerField, but better to extend fields.AutoField
I had the same problem and solved with following code:
from django.db.models import fields
from south.modelsinspector import add_introspection_rules
class BigAutoField(fields.AutoField):
def db_type(self, connection):
if 'mysql' in connection.__class__.__module__:
return 'bigint AUTO_INCREMENT'
return super(BigAutoField, self).db_type(connection)
add_introspection_rules([], ["^MYAPP\.fields\.BigAutoField"])
Apparently this is working fine with south migrations.
You could alter the table afterwards. That may be a better solution.
Since Django 3.2 the type of implicit primary key can be controlled with the DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD setting (documentation). So, there is no need anymore to override primary keys in all your models.
#This setting will change all implicitly added primary keys to BigAutoField
DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD = 'django.db.models.BigAutoField'
Note that starting with Django 3.2 new projects are generated with DEFAULT_AUTO_FIELD set to BigAutoField (release notes).
As stated before you could alter the table afterwards. That is a good solution.
To do that without forgetting, you can create a management module under your application package and use the post_syncdb signal.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/signals/#post-syncdb
This can cause django-admin.py flush to fail. But it is still the best alternative I know.
I also had the same problem. Looks like there is no support for BigInteger auto fields in django.
I've tried to create some custom field BigIntegerAutoField but I faced a problem with south migration system (south couldn't create sequence for my field).
After giving a try couple of different approaches I decided to follow Matthew's advice and do alter table (e.g. ALTER TABLE table_name ALTER COLUMN id TYPE bigint; in postgre)
Would be great to have solution supported by django (like built in BigIntegerAutoField) and south.

Is there a way to transparently perform validation on SQLAlchemy objects?

Is there a way to perform validation on an object after (or as) the properties are set but before the session is committed?
For instance, I have a domain model Device that has a mac property. I would like to ensure that the mac property contains a valid and sanitized mac value before it is added to or updated in the database.
It looks like the Pythonic approach is to do most things as properties (including SQLAlchemy). If I had coded this in PHP or Java, I would probably have opted to create getter/setter methods to protect the data and give me the flexibility to handle this in the domain model itself.
public function mac() { return $this->mac; }
public function setMac($mac) {
return $this->mac = $this->sanitizeAndValidateMac($mac);
}
public function sanitizeAndValidateMac($mac) {
if ( ! preg_match(self::$VALID_MAC_REGEX) ) {
throw new InvalidMacException($mac);
}
return strtolower($mac);
}
What is a Pythonic way to handle this type of situation using SQLAlchemy?
(While I'm aware that validation and should be handled elsewhere (i.e., web framework) I would like to figure out how to handle some of these domain specific validation rules as they are bound to come up frequently.)
UPDATE
I know that I could use property to do this under normal circumstances. The key part is that I am using SQLAlchemy with these classes. I do not understand exactly how SQLAlchemy is performing its magic but I suspect that creating and overriding these properties on my own could lead to unstable and/or unpredictable results.
You can add data validation inside your SQLAlchemy classes using the #validates() decorator.
From the docs - Simple Validators:
An attribute validator can raise an exception, halting the process of mutating the attribute’s value, or can change the given value into something different.
from sqlalchemy.orm import validates
class EmailAddress(Base):
__tablename__ = 'address'
id = Column(Integer, primary_key=True)
email = Column(String)
#validates('email')
def validate_email(self, key, address):
# you can use assertions, such as
# assert '#' in address
# or raise an exception:
if '#' not in address:
raise ValueError('Email address must contain an # sign.')
return address
Yes. This can be done nicely using a MapperExtension.
# uses sqlalchemy hooks to data model class specific validators before update and insert
class ValidationExtension( sqlalchemy.orm.interfaces.MapperExtension ):
def before_update(self, mapper, connection, instance):
"""not every instance here is actually updated to the db, see http://www.sqlalchemy.org/docs/reference/orm/interfaces.html?highlight=mapperextension#sqlalchemy.orm.interfaces.MapperExtension.before_update"""
instance.validate()
return sqlalchemy.orm.interfaces.MapperExtension.before_update(self, mapper, connection, instance)
def before_insert(self, mapper, connection, instance):
instance.validate()
return sqlalchemy.orm.interfaces.MapperExtension.before_insert(self, mapper, connection, instance)
sqlalchemy.orm.mapper( model, table, extension = ValidationExtension(), **mapper_args )
You may want to check before_update reference because not every instance here is actually updated to the db.
"It looks like the Pythonic approach is to do most things as properties"
It varies, but that's close.
"If I had coded this in PHP or Java, I would probably have opted to create getter/setter methods..."
Good. That's Pythonic enough. Your getter and setter functions are bound up in a property; that's pretty good.
What's the question?
Are you asking how to spell property?
However, "transparent validation" -- if I read your example code correctly -- may not really be all that good an idea.
Your model and your validation should probably be kept separate. It's common to have multiple validations for a single model. For some users, fields are optional, fixed or not used; this leads to multiple validations.
You'll be happier following the Django design pattern of using a Form for validation, separate form the model.

Categories