We Keep Coding

Django - Team/User relationships

I'm at a loss... I'm just learning Django and I am really rather confused about how to make a field work the way I would like it to.
I understand that Django has a native "Groups" model. However, I am looking to build my own teams model for customization and practice.
Here is my models.py file for my Users app:
from django.db import models
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
class Team(models.Model):
members = models.ManyToManyField(User)
class Profile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
admin = models.BooleanField("Admin Status")
Here's where I'm confused. I would like to be able to call the team that the user is part of directly from User.Profile. So, I want to add a field to my Profile class that will automatically populate with the team name when a user is added to a team.
A potential problem I can see is that, currently, I can assign a user to multiple teams. This doesn't bother me, perhaps I can have a Profile model field that automatically populates with a list of all the teams that the user is associated with. Regardless, I can't figure out what type of field I would need to use, or how to do this.
Does that make sense?

A potential problem I can see is that, currently, I can assign a user to multiple teams.
Indeed, you can however easily retrieve the Teams the myprofile object is a member of with:
Team.objects.filter(members__profile=myprofile)
You thus can make a property for the Profile model:
class Profile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
admin = models.BooleanField("Admin Status")
#property
def teams(self):
return Team.objects.filter(
members__profile=self
)
Then you thus access the Teams of a myprofile with myprofile.teams.

So, I want to add a field to my Profile class that will automatically populate with the team name when a user is added to a team.
From my limited knowledge of database, you can add a name field to your Team model.

Keeping in mind your requirement as mentioned in question, i would suggest you to use django reverse relations to get all the teams the profile is associated with
user_teams = User.objects.get(id='user_id').profile_set.all()[0].team_set.all()
to know more about django ORM reverse relation, here is a very short article

ModelManager used in ForeignKey relations

I'm using Django 1.9 on my site and I need an effective way of completely ignore the inactive users, so I don't send them any notifications, emails, etc.
I've tried using a custom Model Manager that only returns the active ones, like this:
class ActiveAccountsManager(models.Manager):
use_for_related_fields = True
def get_queryset(self):
return super(ActiveAccountsManager, self).get_queryset().filter(user__is_active=True)
class Account(models.Model):
class Meta:
verbose_name = _('Account')
verbose_name_plural = _('Accounts')
objects = ActiveAccountsManager()
all_accounts = models.Manager() # Enabling the obtention of all the users, instead of only the active ones
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
type = models.IntegerField(choices=ACCOUNT_TYPES, default=-1)
And, while it works exactly as I want when I directly try to query Account objects, it doesn't when they are referenced through an object that has a ForeignKey relation with it. For example, if I had a Comment model like the following one:
class Comment(models.Model):
author = models.ForeignKey(Account)
I'd like that, when I query for Comment objects, the ones whose author is a inactive user (i.e. an user that the default Manager of the Account model won't return) aren't returned either, instead of the current behavior that returns the comment but says that the account related to it does not exist
Is there any way of achieving this without specifically defining a custom ModelManager on the Comment class? Because the thing is that I want to achieve this in a lot of classes related to the Account one and I can't think of a way of doing it without being extremely repetitive.
Please, don't hesitate to ask if any part of my question isn't clear enough or if I need to provide more details about my code. Thank you so much in advance.

It should already work in your case, as the docs (https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.9/topics/db/managers/#default-managers) say:
Default managers
If you use custom Manager objects, take note that the first Manager
Django encounters (in the order in which they’re defined in the model)
has a special status. Django interprets the first Manager defined in a
class as the “default” Manager, and several parts of Django (including
dumpdata) will use that Manager exclusively for that model. As a
result, it’s a good idea to be careful in your choice of default
manager in order to avoid a situation where overriding get_queryset()
results in an inability to retrieve objects you’d like to work with.
Since the ActiveAccountsManager declaration comes first in your model, it should be already marked as the "default" one.
If you were to update to Django >= 1.10, you can set up explicitly the default manager for your model (see https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.11/ref/models/options/#default-manager-name).

Django set privacy options per model field

I have gone through the question, best way to implement privacy on each field in model django and Its answers doesn't seem solve my problem so I am asking some what related question here,
well, I have a User model. I want the user to make possible to control the privacy of each and every field of their profile (may be gender, education, interests etc . ..).
The privacy options must not to be limited to just private or public, but as descriptive as
public
friends
only me
friend List 1 (User.friendlist.one)
friend List 2 (User.friendlist.two)
friend List 3 (User.friendlist.three)
another infinte lists that user may create.
I also don't want these privacy options to be saved on another model, but the same so that with one query I could get the user object along with the privacy options.
so If I have the UserModel,
class User(models.Model):
name = models.CharField()
email = models.EmailField()
phone = models.CharField()
How do I setup a privacy setting here? I am using postgres, can I map a JSON field or Hstore even an ArrayField?
what is the best solution that people used to do with Django with same problem?
update:
I have n model fields. What I really want is to store the privacy settings of each instance on itself or some other convenient way.

I have worked on my issue, tried solutions with permissions and other relations. I have a Relationship Model and all other relationship lists are derived from the Relationship model, so I don't want to maintain a separate list of Relationships.
So my pick was to go with a Postgres JSONField or HStoreField. Since Django has good support for postgres freatures, I found these points pro for the choice I made.
JSON/HashStore can be queried with Django ORM.
The configurations are plain JSON/HashStore which are easy to edit and maintain than permissions and relations.
I found database query time taken are larger with permissions than with JSON/HStore. (hits are higher with permissions)
Adding and validating permissions per field are complex than adding/validating JSON.
At some point in future if comes a more simple or hassle free solution, I can migrate to it having whole configuration at a single field.
So My choice was to go with a configuration model.
class UserConfiguration(models.Model):
user = # link to the user model
configuration = #either an HStore of JSONFeild
Then wrote a validator to make sure configuration data model is not messed up while saving and updating. I grouped up the fields to minimize the validation fields. Then wrote a simple parser that takes the users and finds the relationship between them, then maps with the configuration to return the allowed field data (logged at 2-4ms in an unoptimized implementation, which is enough for now). (With permission's I would need a separate list of friends to be maintained and should update all the group permissions on updation of privacy configuration, then I still have to validate the permissions and process it, which may take lesser time than this, but for the cost of complex system).
I think this method is scalable as well, as most of the processing is done in Python and database calls are cut down to the least as possible.
Update
I have skinned down database queries further. In the previous implementation the relations between users where iterated, which timed around 1-2ms, changing this implementation to .value_list('relations', flat=True) cut down the query time to 400-520µs.

I also don't want these privacy options to be saved on another model, but the same so that with one query I could get the user object along with the privacy options.
I would advice you to decouple the privacy objects from the UserModel, to not mess your users data together with those options. To minimize the amount of database queries, use djangos select_related and prefetch_related.
The requirements you have defined IMO lead to a set of privacy related objects, which are bound to the UserModel. django.contrib.auth is a good point to start with in this case. It is build to be extendable. Read the docs on that topic.
If you expect a large amount of users and therefore also an even larger amount of groups you might want to consider writing the permissions resolved for one user in a redis based session to be able to fetch them quickly on each page load.
UPDATE:
I thought a little more about your requirements and came to the conclusion that you need per object permission as implemented in django-guardian. You should start reading their samples and code first. They build that on top of django.contrib.auth but without depending on it, which makes it also usable with custom implementations that follow the interfaces in django.contrib.auth.

What about something like this?
class EditorList(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(...)
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
editor = models.ManyToManyField(User)
class UserPermission(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
name = models.BooleanField(default=False)
email = models.BooleanField(default=False)
phone = models.BooleanField(default=False)
...
editor = models.ManyToManyField(User)
editor_list = models.ManyToManyField(EditorList)
If a user wants to give 'email' permissions to public, then she creates a UserPermission with editor=None and editor_list=None and email=True.
If she wants to allow user 'rivadiz' to edit her email, then she creates a UserPermission with editor='rivadiz' and email=True.
If she wants to create a list of friends that can edit her phone, then she creates and populates an EditorList called 'my_friends', then creates a UserPermission with editor_list='my_friends' and phone=True
You should then be able to query all the users that have permission to edit any field on any user.
You could define some properties in the User model for easily checking which fields are editable, given a User and an editor.
You would first need to get all the EditorLists an editor belonged to, then do something like
perms = UserPermissions.objects.filter(user=self).filter(Q(editor=editor) | Q(editor_list=editor_list))

First of all, in my opinion you should go for multiple models and for making the queries faster, as already mentioned in other answers, you can use caching or select_related or prefetch_related as per your usecase.
So here is my proposed solution:
User model
class User(models.Model):
name = models.CharField()
email = models.EmailField()
phone = models.CharField()
...
public_allowed_read_fields = ArrayField(models.IntegerField())
friends_allowed_read_fields = ArrayField(models.IntegerField())
me_allowed_read_fields = ArrayField(models.IntegerField())
friends = models.ManyToManyField(User)
part_of = models.ManyToManyField(Group, through=GroupPrivacy)
Group(friends list) model
class Group(models.Model):
name = models.CharField()
Through model
class GroupPrivacy(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
group = models.ForeignKey(Group)
allowed_read_fields = ArrayField(models.IntegerField())
User Model fields mapping to integers
USER_FIELDS_MAPPING = (
(1, User._meta.get_field('name')),
(2, User._meta.get_field('email')),
(3, User._meta.get_field('phone')),
...
)
HOW DOES THIS HELPS??
for each of public, friends and me, you can have a field in the User model itself as already mentioned above i.e. public_allowed_read_fields, friends_allowed_read_fields and me_allowed_read_fields respectively. Each of this field will contain a list of integers mapped to the ones inside USER_FIELDS_MAPPING(explained in detail below)
for friend_list_1, you will have group named friend_list_1. Now the point is the user wants to show or hide a specific set of fields to this friends list. That's where the through model, GroupPrivacy comes into the play. Using this through model you define a M2M relation between a user and a group with some additional properties which are unique to this relation. In this GroupPrivacy model you can see allowed_read_fields field, it is used to store an array of integers corresponding to the ones in the USER_FIELDS_MAPPING. So lets say, for group friend_list_1 and user A, the allowed_read_fields = [1,2]. Now, if you map this to USER_FIELDS_MAPPING, you will know that user A wants to show only name and email to the friends in this list. Similarly different users in friend_list_1 group will have different values in allowed_read_fields for their corresponding GroupPrivacy model instance.
This will be similar for multiple groups.

This will be much more cumbersome without a separate permissions model. The fact that you can associate a given field of an individual user's profile with more than one friend list implies a Many to Many table, and you're better off just letting Django handle that for you.
I'm thinking something more like:
class Visibility(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
field = models.CharField(max_length=32)
public = models.BooleanField(default=False)
friends = models.BooleanField(default=False)
lists = models.ManyToManyField(FriendList)
#staticmethod
def visible_profile(request_user, profile_user):
"""Get a dictionary of profile_user's profile, as
should be visible to request_user..."""
(I'll leave the details of such a method as an exercise, but it's not
too complex.)
I'll caution that the UI involved for a user to set those permissions is likely to be a challenge because of the many-to-many connection to friend lists. Not impossible, definitely, but a little tedious.
A key advantage of the M2M table here is that it'll be self-maintaining if the user or any friend list is removed -- with one exception. The idea in this scheme is that without any Visibility records, all data is private (to allow everyone to see your name, you'd add a Visibility record with user=(yourself), field="name", and public=True. Since a Visibility record where public=False, friends=False, and lists=[] is pointless, I'd check for that situation after the user edits it and remove that record entirely.
Another valid strategy is to have two special FriendList records: one for "public", and one for "all friends". This simplifies the Visibility model quite a bit at the expense of a little more code elsewhere.

difference between ForeignKey and extending the User class/model in Django

Django: When extending User, better to use OneToOneField(User) or ForeignKey(User, unique=True)?
I went through this thread and found that ForeignKey(with unique=True) is better than OneToOneField, but what about extending the class itself, I.e. here is the example
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, unique=True)
# some additional fields
OR
class UserProfile(User):
# some additional fields
Difference between these two approaches and pros/cons and which one should I use?
EDIT:
I can use AbstractUser as well
from django.contrib.auth.models import AbstractUser
class User(AbstractUser):
phone_no = models.CharField(max_length=10, blank=True)
and then mentioned AUTH_USER_MODEL = 'myapp.User' in settings.py
main concern is, what approach should I use, extending the class or ForeignKey ?
Duplicates:
What's the difference between OneToOne and Subclassing a model in Django
Django Model Inheritance versus OneToOne field
MORE EDIT
Forget about ForeginKey or OneToOne, assume only one of these two exist, now compare that with extending/subclassing approach

First, it is good to know there currently are several options how to extend the Django user model. Each has its purpose (but there is some overlap as well). Django docs are a bit confusing as it seems from this there are two options, i.e. proxy or OneToOneField. However this relates to the existing user model, as further on in the docs is dealt with custom user models.
So in practice there are four (common) ways to deal with extending the user model:
Proxy model (no new databasefields, just to change user model behavior, i.e. new ordering, new methods, etc.).
OneToOneField (extra datafields needed within existing Djang user model).
Custom user model with AbstractBaseUser (extra datafields
needed, and specific requirements regarding authenticaton process,
e.g. using emailaddress als id token instead of username).
Custom user model with AbstractUser (extra datafields needed, no
change to authentication).
Implementing option 3 and 4 a fresh database migration is needed, so these are only suitable for new projects.
This is a good link for more detail on this. I think option 2 and 4 are closest as both only want to extend to add more datafields. Writer seems in favor of option 2, but when starting a new project option 4 seems easier to me. Somewhere in the comments writer mentions risk of not being able to upgrade to new Django versions for option 3 and 4. Seems far-fetched to me, but I can't tell really.

There is no better way to do, the thing is if you do extend AbstractUser you need to redefine some functions so it may be longer but you have more control on what you wanna do with your user.
Make a OneToOne field on django default user is faster and also allow you to add your own user custom fields but you can use directly User default field in your custom object, and your custom field on the user :
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
class Employee(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
department = models.CharField(max_length=100)
You can do :
>>> u = User.objects.get(username='fsmith')
>>> freds_department = u.employee.department
So it really depends on what you want to do. You can do your User for example if you want to take the mail adress as the identification token (it's a common exmaple but you can do much more things :p).
Here is a good explanation (I place it on user but you can read the whole page it's pretty interesting when you dive into User and authentication into Django).
Hope it help.

I am skeptical about the benefits of a unique FK verses one-to-one, you could achieve a similar thing in the admin by using fieldsets so I would prefer to have an explicit one-to-one field on the model, making the nature of the relation more obvious.
The duplicate questions you linked to aren't specific to the auth User model and discuss one-to-one vs model inheritance generally. Technically they are both the same (i.e. model inheritance uses a one-to-one field)
So ultimately the choice comes down to semantics: is your related model a 'subclass' of the other, or just a link to further related info?
In the case of auth User you would ask yourself then: are there some extra fields that should be present for all users (eg gender, facebook id etc)? or some fields you want to omit from the Django User model (eg to use unique email address as username)?
In this case the obvious choice is to extend AbstractUser. If you can't imagine specifying null=True on your user profile model you should consider extending AbstractUser.
On the other hand there may be some data that is more analogous to the old UserProfile model (have a look how things were in old versions of Django before extending AbstractUser was supported: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.4/topics/auth/#storing-additional-information-about-users)
Perhaps for example you have different types of users who may or may not have certain extra sets of fields. In this case it may make sense to have a one-to-one link to one or more 'profile' models.

Filter property objects by other property in Django (Admin)

How can you filter a property by another property in the object (perhaps in the models) such that you don't have to add filtering to all places where objects are access. E.g: Django Admin, ViewSet in Rest Framework and so on. But obviously, that might not be possible...
I have the following models:
class Food(models.Model):
# ...
pass
class Weight(models.Model):
# ...
food = models.ForeignKey('Food')
class Ingredient(models.Model):
food = models.ForeignKey(Food, null=False)
amount = models.DecimalField(decimal_places=2, max_digits=5)
weight = models.ForeignKey(Weight)
note = models.CharField(max_length=200, null=True, blank=True)
I'd like to have the list of possible 'Weights' under Ingredient to show only the weights that contain the 'Food' I selected, instead of Weight.objects.all()
Any idea how to get there?

Assuming you want to update things in the Django Admin, you would probably need to use Ajax when adding a new object since the Food is unknown until someone makes a selection. At that point you can have jQuery or something similar update the available options in the Weight widget.
There are ways to filter the available list on edit in Django, look at formfield_for_dbfield (which allows you to assign a Widget and then queryset), but you would need to set the object information first via get_form. This can get complex and would make things messy if someone came in to edit the object and changed the food selected. Then you would again need ajax to rewrite the available options.
Since your need is dynamic, I think an ajax widget might be your best bet.

Ingredient.weight_set.filter(food_name="apple")