I'm building a personal project with Django, to train myself (because I love Django, but I miss skills). I have the basic requirements, I know Python, I carefully read the Django book twice if not thrice.
My goal is to create a simple monitoring service, with a Django-based web interface allowing me to check status of my "nodes" (servers). Each node has multiple "services". The application checks the availability of each service for each node.
My problem is that I have no idea how to represent different types of services in my database. I thought of two "solutions" :
single service model, with a "serviceType" field, and a big mess with the fields. (I have no great experience in database modeling, but this looks... "bad" to me)
multiple service models. i like this solution, but then I have no idea how I can reference these DIFFERENT services in the same field.
This is a short excerpt from my models.py file : (I removed everything that is not related to this problem)
from django.db import models
# Create your models here.
class service(models.Model):
port = models.PositiveIntegerField()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class sshService(service):
username = models.CharField(max_length=64)
pkey = models.TextField()
class telnetService(service):
username = models.CharField(max_length=64)
password = models.CharField(max_length=64)
class genericTcpService(service):
pass
class genericUdpService(service):
pass
class node(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=64)
# various fields
services = models.ManyToManyField(service)
Of course, the line with the ManyToManyField is bogus. I have no idea what to put in place of "*Service". I honestly searched for solutions about this, I heard of "generic relations", triple-join tables, but I did'nt really understand these things.
Moreover, English is not my native language, so coming to database structure and semantics, my knowledge and understanding of what I read is limited (but that's my problem)
For a start, use Django's multi-table inheritance, rather than the abstract model you have currently.
Your code would then become:
from django.db import models
class Service(models.Model):
port = models.PositiveIntegerField()
class SSHService(Service):
username = models.CharField(max_length=64)
pkey = models.TextField()
class TelnetService(Service):
username = models.CharField(max_length=64)
password = models.CharField(max_length=64)
class GenericTcpService(Service):
pass
class GenericUDPService(Service):
pass
class Node(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=64)
# various fields
services = models.ManyToManyField(Service)
On the database level, this will create a 'service' table, the rows of which will be linked via one to one relationships with separate tables for each child service.
The only difficulty with this approach is that when you do something like the following:
node = Node.objects.get(pk=node_id)
for service in node.services.all():
# Do something with the service
The 'service' objects you access in the loop will be of the parent type.
If you know what child type these will have beforehand, you can just access the child class in the following way:
from django.core.exceptions import ObjectDoesNotExist
try:
telnet_service = service.telnetservice
except (AttributeError, ObjectDoesNotExist):
# You chose the wrong child type!
telnet_service = None
If you don't know the child type beforehand, it gets a bit trickier. There are a few hacky/messy solutions, including a 'serviceType' field on the parent model, but a better way, as Joe J mentioned, is to use a 'subclassing queryset'. The InheritanceManager class from django-model-utils is probably the easiest to use. Read the documentation for it here, it's a really nice little bit of code.
I think one approach that you might consider is a "subclassing queryset". Basically, it allows you to query the parent model and it will return instances of the child models in the result queryset. It would let you do queries like:
models.service.objects.all()
and have it return to you results like the following:
[ <sshServiceInstance>, <telnetServiceInstance>, <telnetServiceInstance>, ...]
For some examples on how to do this, check out the links on the blog post linked below.
http://jazstudios.blogspot.com/2009/10/django-model-inheritance-with.html
However, if you use this approach, you shouldn't declare your service model as abstract as you do in the example. Granted, you will be introducing an extra join, but overall I've found the subclassing queryset to work pretty well for returning a mixed set of objects in a queryset.
Anyway, hope this helps,
Joe
If you are looking for generic foreign key relations you should check the Django contenttypes framework (built into Django). The docs pretty much explain how to use it and how to work with generic relations.
An actual service can only be on one node, right? In that case when not have a field
node = models.ForeignKey('node', related_name='services')
in the service class?
Related
I'm trying to learn Google App Engine's NDB and I'm confused about the structure of models.
My situation is similar to a CMS platform with Post Types (like in WordPress), so I have "Blogs" and "Pages". All of these Post Types require the same set of attributes: Parent, Name, Slug, Template, Content, Status, and Date.
So far, I gather that I need to create a Model for these like this:
class Post(ndb.Expando):
parent = ndb.StringProperty()
name = ndb.StringProperty()
slug = ndb.StringProperty()
template = ndb.StringProperty()
content = ndb.StringProperty(indexed=False)
status = ndb.StringProperty()
date = ndb.DateTimeProperty(auto_now_add=True)
(I'm using Expando because I will be adding "unknown" attributes in my application)
But with this structure, all of my posts (in every Post Type) will be within the same "kind", so queries will take longer (if I'm not mistaken).
How can I create many Models (kinds) with the same attributes?
Do I copy & paste the above Model under different class names?
Is it possible to create new Models dynamically (similar to "Custom Post Types" in WordPress)? Does it work if I use ndb.Key('Blog', blogid) instead of declaring a Model?
Do I create a Model called class PostType(ndb.Model) that stores the "Post Types" and give them ancestors of Posts? (If I'm not mistaken, this would cause problems because updating a Post would "lock" the entire ancestor tree for a second or so)
My primary goal is efficiency. Thanks!
Updates:
As written by Dan and mgilson, adding sub-classes of the main Post class Model is a good way to solve this:
class Post(ndb.Expando):
parent = ndb.StringProperty()
name = ndb.StringProperty()
slug = ndb.StringProperty()
template = ndb.StringProperty()
content = ndb.StringProperty(indexed=False)
status = ndb.StringProperty()
date = ndb.DateTimeProperty(auto_now_add=True)
class Blog(Post):
pass
However, this requires writing the Models statically. Is there a way to accomplish this dynamically (without declaring them as Models beforehand)?
Update:
Following the advice given below, I decided to keep all of my entities under the same kind. I might decide later on to change this to subclasses (separate kinds for each "Post Type") if my queries get messy. Thank you all for your great advice!
How can I create many Models with the same attributes?
You can subclass:
class SpecialPost(Post):
"""Special post type that is a different kind than Post."""
Though it's often easy enough to use the same kind and just add an extra field that represents the kind of post which you can filter on in queries.
Is it possible to create new Models dynamically (similar to "Custom Post Types" in WordPress)? Does it work if I use ndb.Key('Blog', blogid) instead of declaring a Model?
I'm not 100% sure that I understand what you're asking here. You can dynamically create models the same way you can dynamically create classes in python (using type), but you probably don't want to be doing this. Getting those dynamically created models (and keeping track of their names) will probably end up giving you serious headaches.
Basically a simple example of subclassing, which #mgilson mentioned already.
class Post(ndb.Expando):
parent = ndb.StringProperty()
name = ndb.StringProperty()
slug = ndb.StringProperty()
template = ndb.StringProperty()
content = ndb.StringProperty(indexed=False)
status = ndb.StringProperty()
date = ndb.DateTimeProperty(auto_now_add=True)
class Blog(Post):
someint = ndb.IntegerProperty()
blog = Blog(status='new', someint=2)
key = blog.put()
print key.kind()
As for dynamically creating models, from the Model's Constructor doc:
An application won't normally call Model(), but is likely to call the
constructor of a class that inherits from Model. This creates a new
instance of this model, also known as an entity.
Even if possible (I didn't dig too deep inside ndb/models.py to say with certainty that it's not) it doesn't appear a clear thing. Personally I'd stay away from that and instead re-think the need for such dynamically created models.
I've looked through Tastypie's documentation and searched for a while, but can't seem to find an answer to this.
Let's say that we've got two models: Student and Assignment, with a one-to-many relationship between them. The Assignment model includes an assignment_date field. Basically, I'd like to build an API using Tastypie that returns Student objects sorted by most recent assignment date. Whether the sorting is done on the server or in the client side doesn't matter - but wherever the sorting is done, the assignment_date is needed to sort by.
Idea #1: just return the assignments along with the students.
class StudentResource(ModelResource):
assignments = fields.OneToManyField(
AssignmentResource, 'assignments', full=True)
class Meta:
queryset = models.Student.objects.all()
resource_name = 'student'
Unfortunately, each student may have tens or hundreds of assignments, so this is bloated and unnecessary.
Idea #2: augment the data during the dehydrate cycle.
class StudentResource(ModelResource):
class Meta:
queryset = models.Student.objects.all()
resource_name = 'student'
def dehydrate(self, bundle):
bundle.data['last_assignment_date'] = (models.Assignment
.filter(student=bundle.data['id'])
.order_by('assignment_date')[0].assignment_date)
This is not ideal, since it'll be performing a separate database roundtrip for each student record. It's also not very declarative, nor elegant.
So, is there a good way to get this kind of functionality with Tastypie? Or is there a better way to do what I'm trying to achieve?
You can sort a ModelResource by a field name. Check out this part of the documentation http://django-tastypie.readthedocs.org/en/latest/resources.html#ordering
You could also set this ordering by default in the Model: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/options/#ordering
class BaseCommentAbstractModel(models.Model):
"""
An abstract base class that any custom comment models probably should
subclass.
"""
# Content-object field
content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType,
verbose_name=_('content type'),
related_name="content_type_set_for_%(class)s")
object_pk = models.TextField(_('object ID'))
content_object = generic.GenericForeignKey(ct_field="content_type", fk_field="object_pk")
# Metadata about the comment
site = models.ForeignKey(Site)
class Meta:
abstract = True
def get_content_object_url(self):
"""
Get a URL suitable for redirecting to the content object.
"""
return urlresolvers.reverse(
"comments-url-redirect",
args=(self.content_type_id, self.object_pk)
)
I have two questions related to this model code.
models.TextField(_('object ID')) Object ID which probably is the verbose Name of this TextField ,How does it reflect in the database?
Why do Django relies on field abstract of Meta innerclass instead of using abc(AbstractBaseClass) module?
That is indeed that verbose name. I assume you understand that _ is the call to ugettext_lazy which is for localizing strings. This is the verbose name of the field. The verbose name is not represented in the database. The name of the field in the database would be object_pk.
I'm not a django dev so I can't speak with authority, but some things are obvious. ABC is new in Python 2.6. This is an issue because as of the most recent release the minimum python version was finally moved to 2.5. This has been being bumped quite quickly as of late. For example it was only on django 1.2 that python 2.4 became required. Abstract models have existed at least as far back as django 1.0 and I think even further back then that (though I can't recall for sure) So even if ABC would be suitable (which I'm not sure it is since the behavior of models is kinda complex), it wouldn't be suitable for django at this point due to the required python version.
Additionally there is some complexity in managing classes that represent the database rather than just data structures. I'm not sure how much this impacts abstract models but for example you can't perform field hiding on django attributes that are Field instances.
Howdy. I'm working on migrating an internal system to Django and have run into a few wrinkles.
Intro
Our current system (a billing system) tracks double-entry bookkeeping while allowing users to enter data as invoices, expenses, etc.
Base Objects
So I have two base objects/models:
JournalEntry
JournalEntryItems
defined as follows:
class JournalEntry(models.Model):
gjID = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
date = models.DateTimeField('entry date');
memo = models.CharField(max_length=100);
class JournalEntryItem(models.Model):
journalEntryID = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
gjID = models.ForeignKey(JournalEntry, db_column='gjID')
amount = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10,decimal_places=2)
So far, so good. It works quite smoothly on the admin side (inlines work, etc.)
On to the next section.
We then have two more models
InvoiceEntry
InvoiceEntryItem
An InvoiceEntry is a superset of / it inherits from JournalEntry, so I've been using a OneToOneField (which is what we're using in the background on our current site). That works quite smoothly too.
class InvoiceEntry(JournalEntry):
invoiceID = models.AutoField(primary_key=True, db_column='invoiceID', verbose_name='')
journalEntry = models.OneToOneField(JournalEntry, parent_link=True, db_column='gjID')
client = models.ForeignKey(Client, db_column='clientID')
datePaid = models.DateTimeField(null=True, db_column='datePaid', blank=True, verbose_name='date paid')
Where I run into problems is when trying to add an InvoiceEntryItem (which inherits from JournalEntryItem) to an inline related to InvoiceEntry. I'm getting the error:
<class 'billing.models.InvoiceEntryItem'> has more than 1 ForeignKey to <class 'billing.models.InvoiceEntry'>
The way I see it, InvoiceEntryItem has a ForeignKey directly to InvoiceEntry. And it also has an indirect ForeignKey to InvoiceEntry through the JournalEntry 1->M JournalEntryItems relationship.
Here's the code I'm using at the moment.
class InvoiceEntryItem(JournalEntryItem):
invoiceEntryID = models.AutoField(primary_key=True, db_column='invoiceEntryID', verbose_name='')
invoiceEntry = models.ForeignKey(InvoiceEntry, related_name='invoiceEntries', db_column='invoiceID')
journalEntryItem = models.OneToOneField(JournalEntryItem, db_column='journalEntryID')
I've tried removing the journalEntryItem OneToOneField. Doing that then removes my ability to retrieve the dollar amount for this particular InvoiceEntryItem (which is only stored in journalEntryItem).
I've also tried removing the invoiceEntry ForeignKey relationship. Doing that removes the relationship that allows me to see the InvoiceEntry 1->M InvoiceEntryItems in the admin inline. All I see are blank fields (instead of the actual data that is currently stored in the DB).
It seems like option 2 is closer to what I want to do. But my inexperience with Django seems to be limiting me. I might be able to filter the larger pool of journal entries to see just invoice entries. But it would be really handy to think of these solely as invoices (instead of a subset of journal entries).
Any thoughts on how to do what I'm after?
First, inheriting from a model creates an automatic OneToOneField in the inherited model towards the parents so you don't need to add them. Remove them if you really want to use this form of model inheritance.
If you only want to share the member of the model, you can use Meta inheritance which will create the inherited columns in the table of your inherited model. This way would separate your JournalEntry in 2 tables though but it would be easy to retrieve only the invoices.
All fields in the superclass also exist on the subclass, so having an explicit relation is unnecessary.
Model inheritance in Django is terrible. Don't use it. Python doesn't need it anyway.
I'm currently doing a firewall management application for Django, here's the (simplified) model :
class Port(models.Model):
number = models.PositiveIntegerField(primary_key=True)
application = models.CharField(max_length=16, blank=True)
class Rule(models.Model):
port = models.ForeignKey(Port)
ip_source = models.IPAddressField()
ip_mask = models.IntegerField(validators=[MaxValueValidator(32)])
machine = models.ForeignKey("vmm.machine")
What I would like to do, however, is to display to the user a form for entering rules, but with a very different organization than the model :
Port 80
O Not open
O Everywhere
O Specific addresses :
--------- delete field
--------- delete field
+ add address field
Port 443
... etc
Where Not open means that there is no rule for the given port, Everywhere means that there is only ONE rule (0.0.0.0/0) for the given port, and with specific addresses, you can add as many addresses as you want (I did this with JQuery), which will make as many rules.
Now I did a version completely "handmade", meaning that I create the forms entirely in my templates, set input names with a prefix, and parse all the POSTed stuff in my view (which is quite painful, and means that there's no point in using a web framework).
I also have a class which aggregates the rules together to easily pre-fill the forms with the informations "not open, everywhere, ...". I'm passing a list of those to the template, therefore it acts as an interface between my model and my "handmade" form :
class MachinePort(object):
def __init__(self, machine, port):
self.machine = machine
self.port = port
#property
def fully_open(self):
for rule in self.port.rule_set.filter(machine=self.machine):
if ipaddr.IPv4Network("%s/%s" % (rule.ip_source, rule.ip_mask)) == ipaddr.IPv4Network("0.0.0.0/0"):
return True
else :
return False
#property
def partly_open(self):
return bool(self.port.rule_set.filter(machine=self.machine)) and not self.fully_open
#property
def not_open(self):
return not self.partly_open and not self.fully_open
But all this is rather ugly ! Do anyone of you know if there is a classy way to do this ? In particular with the form... I don't know how to have a form that can have an undefined number of fields, neither how to transform these fields into Rule objects (because all the rule fields would have to be gathered from the form), neither how to save multiple objects... Well I could try to hack into the Form class, but seems like too much work for such a special case. Is there any nice feature I'm missing ?
You can create usual Forms objects by subclassing Form and adding fields in constructor, as in:
self.base_fields[field_name] = field_instance
As for the Rule, You can create a custom Field that will validate() itself according to Your rules and add it to Your custom form as above.
So Yes, it must be handmande (AFAIK), but it's not so much code.
Ok, finally I got it running by making the models closer to what I wanted to present to the user. But related to the topic of the question :
1) Nested forms/formsets are not a built-in Django feature, are a pain to implement by yourself, and are actually not needed... Rather, one should use forms' and formsets' prefixes.
2) Trying to work with forms not based on the models, process the data, then reinject it in the models, is much much more code than modifying the models a little bit to have nice model-based forms.
So what I did is I modified the models like that :
class PortConfig(Serializable):
port = models.ForeignKey(Port, editable=False)
machine = models.ForeignKey("vmm.machine", editable=False)
is_open = models.CharField(max_length=16, default="not_open", choices=is_open_choices)
class Rule(Serializable):
ip_source = models.CharField(max_length=24)
port_config = models.ForeignKey(PortConfig)
Then I simply used a "model formset" for PortConfig, and "model inline formset" for Rule, with a PortConfig as foreign key, and it went perfectly
3) I used this great JS library http://code.google.com/p/django-dynamic-formset/ to put the "add field" and "delete field" links ... you almost have nothing to do.