I have a model that represents a position at a company:
class Position(models.Model):
preferred_q = ForeignKey("Qualifications", blank=True, null=True, related_name="pref")
base_q = ForeignKey("Qualifications", blank=True, null=True, related_name="base")
#[...]
It has two "inner objects", which represent minimum qualifications, and "preferred" qualifications for the position.
I have a generic view set up to edit/view a Position instance. Within that page, I have a link that goes to another page where the user can edit each type of qualification. The problem is that I can't just pass the primary key of the qualification, because that object may be empty (blank and null being True, which is by design). Instead I'd like to just pass the position primary key and the keyword preferred_qualification or base_qualification in the URL like so:
(r'^edit/preferred_qualifications/(?P<parent_id>\d{1,4})/$', some_view),
(r'^edit/base_qualifications/(?P<parent_id>\d{1,4})/$', some_view),
Is there any way to do this using generic views, or will I have to make my own view? This is simple as cake using regular views, but I'm trying to migrate everything I can over to generic views for the sake of simplicity.
If you want the edit form to be for one of the related instances of InnerModel, but you want to pass in the PK for ParentModel in the URL (as best I can tell this is what you're asking, though it isn't very clear), you will have to use a wrapper view. Otherwise how is Django's generic view supposed to magically know which relateed object you want to edit?
Depending how consistent the related object attributes are for the "many models" you want to edit this way, there's a good chance you could make this work with just one wrapper view rather than many. Hard to say without seeing more of the code.
As explained in the documentation for the update_object generic view, if you have ParentModel as value for the 'model' key in the options_dict in your URL definition, you should be all set.
Related
I have two models: Setting and SettingsGroup.
When someone clicks on a specific SettingsGroup in the Django Admin and the edit/detail page appears I'd like for the child Setting objects to be displayed but as a list not a form.
I know that Django has InlineModelAdmin but this displays the children as editable forms.
My concern isn't with the child objects being editable from the parent object but rather the amount of space it consumes. I'd rather have a list with either a link to the appropriate child record or that changes a particular object to be inline editable.
Here is my Setting model:
class Setting(models.Model):
key = models.CharField(max_length=255, blank=False)
value = models.TextField(blank=True)
group = models.ForeignKey('SettingsGroup', blank=True,
on_delete=models.SET_NULL, null=True)
def __str__(self):
return str(self.key)
And the SettingsGroup model:
class SettingsGroup(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
description = models.TextField(blank=True)
def __str__(self):
return str(self.name)
The method I don't want to use (or need to find a different way to use) is InlineModelAdmin which appears in my admin.py currently as:
class SettingsGroupInline(admin.StackedInlin):
model = Setting
fk_name = 'group'
#admin.register(SettingsGroup)
class SettingsGroupAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin):
inlines = [ SettingGroupsInline, ]
Here is an example of how I'd like it to work:
There is a MySettings object, an instance of the SettingsGroup model.
There is a CoolSetting object and a BoringSetting object, each an instance of the Setting model.
The CoolSetting object has its group set to the MySettings object.
The BoringSetting object does not have a group set.
When I open the detail/edit view of the Django Admin for the MySettings object I see the normal edit form for the MySettings object and below it the CoolSetting object (but not as a form).
I do not see the BoringSetting object because it is not a child/member/related of/to MySettings.
I have some ideas on how this could be accomplished but this seems like fairly basic functionality and I don't want to go building something if Django (or other existing code) provides a way to accomplish this.
Any ideas?
Why can't you just access the children using something like Setting.objects.filter(group=SettingsGroup.objects.get(name={name}))
If being presented in a template you could pass the SettingsGroup name to the context and iterate over the children and present them however you like.
I may not understand your question exactly so if this is not what you're looking for let me know!
I am trying to make a serializer with a nested "many to many" relationship. The goal is to get a serialized JSON object contain an array of serialized related objects. The models look like this (names changed, structure preserved)
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
PizzaTopping(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
inventor = models.ForeignKey(User)
Pizza(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
toppings = models.ManyToManyField(PizzaTopping)
The incoming JSON looks like this
{
"name": "My Pizza",
"toppings": [
{"name": "cheese", "inventor": "bob"},
{"name": "tomatoes", "inventor": "alice"}
]
}
My current serializer code looks like this
class ToppingRelatedField(RelatedField):
def get_queryset(self):
return Topping.objects.all()
def to_representation(self, instance):
return {'name': instance.name, 'inventor': instance.inventor.username}
def to_internal_value(self, data):
name = data.get('name', None)
inventor = data.get('inventor', None)
try:
user = User.objects.get(username=inventor)
except Setting.DoesNotExist:
raise serializers.ValidationError('bad inventor')
return Topping(name=name, inventor=user)
class PizzaSerializer(ModelSerializer):
toppings = ToppingRelatedField(many=True)
class Meta:
model = Pizza
fields = ('name', 'toppings')
It seems that since I defined the to_internal_value() for the custom field, it should create/update the many-to-many field automatically. But when I try to create pizzas, I get "Cannot add "": the value for field "pizzatopping" is None" ValueError. It looks like somewhere deep inside, Django decided that the many to many field should be called by the model name. How do I convince it otherwise?
Edit #1: It seems that this might be a genuine bug somewhere in Django or DRF. DRF seems to be doing the right thing, it detects that it is dealing with a ManyToMany field and tries to create toppings from the data using the custom field and add them to the pizza. Since it only has a pizza instance and a field name, it uses setattr(pizza, 'toppings', toppings) to do it. Django seems to be doing the right thing. The __set__ is defined and seems to figure out that it needs to use add() method in the manager. But somewhere along the way, the field name 'toppings' gets lost and replaced by the default. Which is "related model name in lower case".
Edit #2: I have found a solution. I will document it in an answer once I am allowed. It seems that the to_internal_value() method in the RelatedField subclass needs to return a saved instance of a Topping for the ManyToMany thing to work properly. The existing docs show the opposite, a this link (http://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/fields/#custom-fields) the example clearly returns an unsaved instance.
Seems like there is an undocumented requirement. For write operations to work with a custom ManyToMany field, the custom field class to_internal_value() method needs to save the instance before returning it. The DRF docs omit this and the example of making a custom field (at http://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/fields/#custom-fields) shows the method returning an unsaved instance. I am going to update the issue I opened with the DRF team.
I was also trying to return multiple fields as json but getting error unhashable type: 'dict. Finally, I found what's wrong with my approach here - https://github.com/encode/django-rest-framework/issues/5104
RelatedFields generally represent a related object as a single value
(eg, a slug, primary key, url, etc...). If you want to provide a
nested object representation, then you should use a nested serializer.
I think I have a pretty common use case and am surprised at how much trouble it's giving me.
I want to use a key-value pair for a ReferenceField in the Flask-Admin edit form generated by the following two classes:
class Communique(db.Document):
users = db.ListField(db.ReferenceField(User), default=[])
class User(db.Document):
email = db.StringField(max_length=255, required=True)
def __unicode__(self):
return '%s' % self.id
I want the select to be constructed out of the ObjectId and the an email field in my model.
By mapping the __unicode__
attribute to the id field I get nice things on the mongoengine side like using the entire object in queries:
UserInformation.objects(user=current_user)
This has the unfortunate effect of causing the Flask-Admin form to display the mongo ObjectId in the edit form like so:
The docs say I have to provide the label_attr to the ModelSelectMultipleField created by Flask-Admin. I've done so by overriding the get_form method on my ModelView:
def get_form(self):
form = super(ModelView, self).get_form()
form.users = ModelSelectMultipleField(model=User,
label_attr='email',
widget=form.users.__dict__['kwargs']['widget'])
return form
I'm reusing the the widget used by the original form.users (which may be wrong). It works fine when editing an existing item, BUT throws an exception when creating a new one (perhaps because I'm reusing the widget).
All of this seems like way more work than should be needed to simply provide a label_attr to my SelectField. Fixing up the listing view was a simple matter of adding an entry to the column_formatters dictionary. Is there no simple way to specify the label_attr when creating my ModelView class?
I know I could make this problem go away by returning the email property in the __unicode__ attribute, but I feel like I shouldn't have to do that! Am I missing something?
Oy, now I see how to do it, though it's not that obvious from the docs. form_args is a dictionary with items keyed to the form models. All I needed to do was...
form_args = dict(users=dict(label_attr='email'))
Which does seem about the right amount of effort (considering Flask-Admin isn't some sort of java framework).
Here is an abstract base class for many of my "Treatment" models (TreatmentA, TreatmentB, etc):
class TreatmentBase(models.Model):
URL_PREFIX = '' # child classes define this string
code = shared.models.common.RandomCharField(length=6)
class Meta:
abstract = True
Each Treatment instance has a URL, that when visited by a user, takes them to a page specific to that treatment. I want to be able to create a Treatment in Django Admin, and immediately get this URL so I can send it to users. This URL can be created with the following method on TreatmentBase:
def get_url(self):
return '{}/{}/'.format(self.URL_PREFIX, self.code)
However, I am stuck with how to get this URL to display in Django Admin. I can think of the following solutions:
(1) Customize the display of the code field so that it becomes a clickable URL. Problem: I don't know how to do this.
(2) Add the get_url method to ModelAdmin.list_display. Problem: This means I would have to define a separate list_display for each of the child models of BaseTreatment, and I would have to explicitly list all the fields of the model, meaning I have to update it every time I modify a model, violating DRY.
(3) Add an extra field like this:
url = models.URLField(default = get_url)
Problem: get_url is an instance method (since it needs to refer to the self.code field), and from my reading of the docs about the default argument, it just has to be a simple callable without arguments.
Any way to do this seemingly simple task?
You could go with option 2 (adding to the admin display) but add it to the
readonly_fields which may alleviate your DRY concerns when models changes.
Option 3 (the extra field) could also work if you override the save method setting the URL property. You'd either want to set the field as readonly in the admin or only set the value in the save method if it's currently None.
I'm setting up a data model in django using multiple-table inheritance (MTI) like this:
class Metric(models.Model):
account = models.ForeignKey(Account)
date = models.DateField()
value = models.FloatField()
calculation_in_progress = models.BooleanField()
type = models.CharField( max_length=20, choices= METRIC_TYPES ) # Appropriate?
def calculate(self):
# default calculation...
class WebMetric(Metric):
url = models.URLField()
def calculate(self):
# web-specific calculation...
class TextMetric(Metric):
text = models.TextField()
def calculate(self):
# text-specific calculation...
My instinct is to put a 'type' field in the base class as shown here, so I can tell which sub-class any Metric object belongs to. It would be a bit of a hassle to keep this up to date all the time, but possible. But do I need to do this? Is there some way that django handles this automatically?
When I call Metric.objects.all() every objects returned is an instance of Metric never the subclasses. So if I call .calculate() I never get the sub-class's behavior.
I could write a function on the base class that tests to see if I can cast it to any of the sub-types like:
def determine_subtype(self):
try:
self.webmetric
return WebMetric
except WebMetric.DoesNotExist:
pass
# Repeat for every sub-class
but this seems like a bunch of repetitious code. And it's also not something that can be included in a SELECT filter -- only works in python-space.
What's the best way to handle this?
While it might offend some people's sensibilities, the only practical way to solve this problem is to put either a field or a method in the base class which says what kind of object each record really is. The problem with the method you describe is that it requires a separate database query for every type of subclass, for each object you're dealing with. This could get extremely slow when working with large querysets. A better way is to use a ForeignKey to the django Content Type class.
#Carl Meyer wrote a good solution here: How do I access the child classes of an object in django without knowing the name of the child class?
Single Table Inheritance could help alleviate this issue, depending on how it gets implemented. But for now Django does not support it: Single Table Inheritance in Django so it's not a helpful suggestion.
But do I need to do this?
Never. Never. Never.
Is there some way that django handles this automatically?
Yes. It's called "polymorphism".
You never need to know the subclass. Never.
"What about my WebMetric.url and my TextMetric.text attributes?"
What will you do with these attributes? Define a method function that does something. Implement different versions in WebMetric (that uses url) and TextMetric (that uses text).
That's proper polymorphism.
Please read this: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/topics/db/models/#abstract-base-classes
Please make your superclass abstract.
Do NOT do this: http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.2/topics/db/models/#multi-table-inheritance
You want "single-table inheritance".