Well, now I'm using Django 1.6+
And I have a model:
class FileReference(models.Model):
# some data fields
# ...
pass
class Person(models.Model):
avatar = models.ForeignKey(FileReference, related_name='people_with_avatar')
class House(models.Model):
images = models.ManyToManyField(FileReference, related_name='houses_with_images')
class Document(model.Model):
attachment = models.OneToOneField(FileReference, related_name='document_with_attachment')
So, many other model will have a foreign key referring to the FileReference model.
But sometimes, the referring models is deleted, with the FileReference object left.
I want to delete the FileReference objects with no foreign key referencing.
But so many other places will have foreign keys.
Is there any efficient way to find all the references? i.e. get the reference count of some model object?
I stumbled upon this question and I got a solution for you. Note, that django==1.6 is not supported any more, so this solution will probably work on django>=1.9
Lets say we are talking about 2 of the objects for now:
class FileReference(models.Model):
pass
class Person(models.Model):
avatar = models.ForeignKey(FileReference, related_name='people_with_avatar', on_delete=models.CASCADE)
As you can see in ForeignKey.on_delete documentation, when you delete the related FileReference object, the referenced object Person is deleted as well.
Now for your question. How do we do the revered? We want upon Person deletion that FileReference object will be removed as well.
We will do that using post_delete signal:
def delete_reverse(sender, **kwargs):
try:
if kwargs['instance'].avatar:
kwargs['instance'].avatar.delete()
except:
pass
post_delete.connect(delete_reverse, sender=Person)
What we did there was deleting the reference in avatar field on Person deletion. Notice that the try: except: block is to prevent looping exceptions.
Extra:
The above solution will work on all future objects. If you want to remove all of the past objects without a reference do the following:
In your package add the following file and directories: management/commands/remove_unused_file_reference.py
from django.core.management.base import BaseCommand, CommandError
class Command(BaseCommand):
def handle(self, *args, **options):
file_references = FileReference.objects.all()
file_reference_mapping = {file_reference.id: file_reference for file_reference in file_references}
persons = Person.objects.all()
person_avatar_mapping = {person.avatar.id: person for person in persons}
for file_reference_id, file_reference in file_reference_mapping.items():
if file_reference_id not in person_avatar_mapping:
file_reference.delete()
When you done, call: python manage.py remove_unused_file_reference
This is the base idea, you can change it to bulk delete etc...
I hope this will help to someone out there. Good Luck!
Related
I have two models that look like this:
class ModelOne(models.Model):
foo = models.CharField(max_length=25)
def save(self,*args,**kwargs):
a = ModelTwo.objects.get(pk=arbitrary_pk)
a.somefield.add(self) # I am worried about this line here
super(ModelOne,self).save(*args,**kwargs)
class ModelTwo(models.Model):
somefield = models.ManyToManyField(ModelOne)
The line where I am adding self to a.somefield is the line I am worried about. How can I do this without error? Currently, I am getting:
ValueError: Cannot add "<ModelOne>": the value for field "modelone" is None
Thanks in advance
You can't do that because when you call .add() you have yet to save your model. That means that the model may not have been created (so it doesn't have an ID yet).
Basically you're telling Django to update the Foreign Key with something that doesn't exist yet (NULL), which will error out. You need to make sure the model has been created before you can set the foreign key.
try moving the a.somefield.add(self) to AFTER the super() call.
You cannot save many to may field before calling actual save method, you modify code like,
def save(self,*args,**kwargs):
super(ModelOne,self).save(*args,**kwargs) # Here your self has been saved
a = ModelTwo.objects.get(pk=arbitrary_pk)
a.somefield.add(self) # Now your self can be add as ManyToMany as it is already saved in db
I hope this help.
Add the instance to the many to many field after calling the save method.
class ModelOne(models.Model):
foo = models.CharField(max_length=25)
def save(self,*args,**kwargs):
super(ModelOne,self).save(*args,**kwargs)
a = ModelTwo.objects.get(pk=arbitrary_pk)
a.somefield.add(self) #add self to the object manytomany.
a.save() #save the object.
class ModelTwo(models.Model):
somefield = models.ManyToManyField(ModelOne)
You need to save the self object first. The many to many relation needs to have the related object saved in the database first, inorder to define the relationship. Then, define the relationship using a.somefield.add(self). Then, save the a object. Otherwise, the relation won't be committed in the database.
I ended up utilizing post_save to get this to work.
Suppose I have an object called Person that has a foreign key that links to CLothes which links to
class Person(models.Model):
clothes = models.ForeignKey('Clothes', on_delete=models.PROTECT)
jokes = models.ManyToManyField(to='Jokes')
class Clothes(models.Model):
fabric = models.ForeignKey('Material', on_delete=models.PROTECT)
class Material(models.Model):
plant = models.ForeignKey('Plant', on_delete=models.PROTECT)
And if I wanted to delete person, I would have to delete Clothes, Jokes, Materials attached to it. Is there a way to recursively detect all the foreign keys so that I can delete them?
The django.db.models.deletion.Collector is suited for this task. It is what Django uses under the hood to cascade deletions.
You can use it this way:
from django.db.models.deletion import Collector
collector = Collector(using='default') # You may specify another database
collector.collect([some_instance])
for model, instance in collector.instances_with_model():
# Our instance has already been deleted, trying again would result in an error
if instance == some_instance:
continue
instance.delete()
For more information about the Collector class, you can refer to this question:
How to show related items using DeleteView in Django?
As mentioned in the comments, using on_delete=models.CASCADE would be the best solution but if you do not have control over that, this should work.
How do you find all direct foreign key references to a specific Django model instance?
I want to delete a record, but I want to maintain all child records that refer to it, so I'm trying to "swap out" the reference to the old record with a different one before I delete it.
This similar question references the Collector class. I tried:
obj_to_delete = MyModel.objects.get(id=blah)
new_obj = MyModel.objects.get(id=blah2)
collector = Collector(using='default')
collector.collect([obj_to_delete])
for other_model, other_data in collector.field_updates.iteritems():
for (other_field, _value), other_instances in other_data.iteritems():
# Why is this necessary?
if other_field.rel.to is not type(first_obj):
continue
for other_instance in other_instances:
setattr(other_instance, other_field.name, new_obj)
other_instance.save()
# All FK references should be gone, so this should be safe to delete.
obj_to_delete.delete()
However, this seems to have two problems:
Sometimes collector.field_updates contains references to models and fields that have nothing to do with my target obj_to_delete.
My final obj_to_delete.delete() call fails with IntegrityErrors complaining about remaining records that still refer to it, records that weren't caught by the collector.
What am I doing wrong?
I just need a way to lookup all FK references to a single model instance. I don't need any kind of fancy dependency lookup like what's used in Django's standard deletion view.
You can use Django's reverse foreign key support.
Say you have two models, like so:
class Foo(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=10)
class Bar(models.Model):
descr = models.CharField(max_length=100)
foo = models.ForeignKey(Foo)
Then you know you can do bar_instance.foo to access the Foo object it keys to. But you can use the reverse foreign key on a Foo instance to get all the Bar objects that point to it using, e.g, foo.bar_set.
Personally, I think the best option is to avoid the cascaded deletion.
Declaring the foreign keys in the related models with the proper Django option, e.g.
on_delete=models.SET_NULL
should suffice.
Borrowing the sample models from #Joseph's answer:
class Foo(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=10)
class Bar(models.Model):
descr = models.CharField(max_length=100)
foo = models.ForeignKey(Foo, blank=True, null=True, on_delete=models.SET_NULL))
As described in the official Django docs, here are the predefined behaviours you can use and experiment with:
SET_NULL: Set the ForeignKey null; this is only possible if null is
True.
SET_DEFAULT: Set the ForeignKey to its default value; a default for
the ForeignKey must be set.
SET(): Set the ForeignKey to the value passed to SET(), or if a
callable is passed in, the result of calling it. In most cases, passing a callable will be necessary to avoid executing queries at the time your models.py is imported:
from django.conf import settings
from django.contrib.auth import get_user_model
from django.db import models
def get_sentinel_user():
return get_user_model().objects.get_or_create(username='deleted')[0]
class MyModel(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL,
on_delete=models.SET(get_sentinel_user))
DO_NOTHING: Take no action. If your database backend enforces
referential integrity, this will cause an IntegrityError unless you
manually add an SQL ON DELETE constraint to the database field
I have been trying to figure out the best way to automate creating multiple SQL tables based on separate but identical models, all based on the same base class. I'm basically creating pseudo message boards or walls with different Groups, and I wanted each Group to have its own db_table of Posts, each Post containing the user id, timestamp, etc.
My first thought was to have one base class of Posts and just include a field for Group name, but I thought this would be bad practice. My rationale was that one table containing every Post for all Groups would get really big (in theory anyway) and slow down filtering, and also that the extra field for group name would in the long run be a waste of memory when I could have separate tables per group and skip this field.
I've also considered using a ForeignKey with a Many-to-One relationship, but as far as I can tell this has the same drawbacks. Am I wrong to think that? Or are these size concerns not really an issue?
So my next idea was to make Posts an abstract class, and then create subclasses based on each Group. This is ultimately what I did. However, I found myself having to copy and paste the code over and over and change the class name each time. This felt very unPythonic to me. It was something like:
class Posts(models.Model):
timestamp = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True, unique=False)
user_id = ...
#etc.
#
class Meta:
abstract = True
class GroupA(Posts):
class Meta(Posts.Meta):
db_table = 'groupa_board'
class GroupB(Posts):
class Meta(Posts.Meta):
db_table = 'groupb_board'
class GroupC...etc.
What I really was looking for was a factory function to do this for me. I tried this sort of thing:
def makeBoard(group):
class Board(Posts):
class Meta(Posts.Meta):
db_table = group
return board #note I tried with and without this line
And then I ran a simple for loop using a list of groups.
for group in groups:
makeBoard(group)
I found myself hitting a RuntimeError: conflicting models in application, and I probably deserved it. So then I figured what I need is something like:
def makeBoard(group):
class group(Posts): #***group here being a variable, not the class name
class Meta(Posts.Meta):
db_table = '%s' % group #maybe issues here too, but the table
return group #name is not that important if the class
#name works
But I couldn't figure out how to make this work! Is there a way to pass a variable from a list to a class name?
Anyway if you're still with me I appreciate it. I've been on stackoverflow all day and while I've found guides for creating abstract base classes and subclasses to solve similar issues, I didn't see a way to create a function to do this for me. I ultimately punted here and just make a subclass for each group by hand. If there is a way to automate this process, I'd love to hear it.
Also, if I'm being stupid for not just going with one db table containing every post, I'd like to know that too, and why! Or if there's a better way to implement this kind of system altogether. I apologize if this has been answered before, I really couldn't find it.
Thank you!
Using a single table would not be bad practice. The extra memory is minimal, on modern systems that shouldn't be a problem. You shouldn't worry about performance either, premature optimization (not including the actual system design) is considered bad practice, but if you run into performance problems you can always specify an index on the group column:
group = models.CharField(max_length=100, db_index=True)
That's not to say that it is the best option, or that your method isn't good. Also, it is entirely possible to dynamically create models, using the type() built-in function. The only difference with dynamically creating models and creating other classes is that you must specifically pass the __module__ attribute. You can create subclasses for Posts in the following way:
def fabric(names, baseclass=Posts):
for name in names:
class Meta:
db_table = '%s_table' % name.lower()
attrs = {'__module__': baseclass.__module__, 'Meta': Meta}
# specify any other class attributes here. E.g. you can specify extra fields:
attrs.update({'my_field': models.CharField(max_length=100)})
newclass = type(str(name), (baseclass,), attrs)
globals()[name] = newclass
fabric(['GroupA', 'GroupB', 'GroupC', etc...])
Put that code in your models.py after your Posts class, and all classes will be created for you. They can be used in any way normal classes can be used: Django doesn't even know you dynamically created this class. Though your Meta class doesn't inherit from Posts.Meta, your meta settings should still be preserved.
Tested with Django 1.4.
Try smth like this
import app.models as group_models
from django.db.models.base import ModelBase
def fabric(group):
for item in dir(group_models):
c = getattr(group_models, item)
if type(c) is ModelBase:
if c._meta.db_table == '%s_table' % group:
return c
return None
I'm working on my first real Django project after years of PHP programming, and I am running into a problem with my models. First, I noticed that I was copying and pasting code between the models, and being a diligent OO programmer I decided to make a parent class that the other models could inherit from:
class Common(model.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
date_created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
date_modified = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
class Meta:
abstract=True
So far so good. Now all my other models extend "Common" and have names and dates like I want. However, I have a class for "Categories" were the name has to be unique. I assume there should be a relatively simple way for me to access the name attribute from Common and make it unique. However, the different methods I have tried to use have all failed. For example:
class Category(Common):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
self.name.unique=True
Causes the Django admin page to spit up the error "Caught an exception while rendering: 'Category' object has no attribute 'name'
Can someone point me in the right direction?
No, Django doesn't allow that.
See the docs: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.1/topics/db/models/#field-name-hiding-is-not-permitted
Also answered in other questions like: In Django - Model Inheritance - Does it allow you to override a parent model's attribute?
You have a small mistake in your Common class
class Common(model.Model):
self.name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
should be
class Common(model.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
Note that UNIQUE constraint in fact has nothing to do with Django, so you're free to add it in your database table. You can also use post-syncdb hook for that purpose.
Try using Meta.unique_together to force it into its own unique index. Failing that, it's probably easiest to create two separate abstract classes, one with the field unique and one not.