I'm working with Django.
I have a model called Agrument. Arguments have sides and owners. I have a function that returns back the side of the most recent argument of a certain user.
like obj.get_current_side(username)
I've added this to the actual Argument model like this
def get_current_side(self, user):
return self.argument_set.latest('pub_date').side
I am starting to think this doesn't make sense because there may not be an instance of an Argument. Is this a place I would use a class method? I thought about making a util class, but I'm thinking that it makes sense to be associated with the Argument class.
It would make more sense to have instance methods on the User model:
def get_current_side(self):
try:
return self.arguments.latest('pub_date').side
except User.DoesNotExist, e:
return None
You can do this by extending the User model as explained here:
Extending the Django User model with inheritance
Edit: I'm not exactly sure which exception gets thrown.
This should be a method on a custom model manager:
# in models.py
class ArgumentManager(models.manager.Manager):
def get_current_side(self, user):
try:
return self.filter(user=user).latest('pub_date').side
except Argument.DoesNotExist:
return None
class Argument(models.Model):
# fields etc...
objects = ArgumentManager()
# Calling:
side = Argument.objects.get_current_side(user)
Alternaticely you can extend contrib.auth.user and add get_current_size() on it. But I wouldn't mess with it until I'm very confident with Django.
BTW: Most of the code in this page is wrong; for example user variable is not used at all on the OP's snipplet.
I think what you are looking for are model managers.
Django docs on managers with managers you can add a function to the model class instead of a model instance.
Related
I have a class with a US cent value. When I serialize it I want to be able to convert it to a dynamically specified other currency. So the class looks like this:
class Evaluation(models.Model):
sum_in_cents = models.IntegerField()
def converted_sum_in_cents(currency_code):
currency_code = currency_code.upper()
CurrencyConverter().convert(self.sum_in_cents / 100, 'USD', currency_code)
... #other stuff
And it has a standard serializer that currently ignores that function:
class EvaluationSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Evaluation
fields = '__all__'
depth = 1
So how, when using the serializer, should I get the currency_code argument to the converted_sum_in_cents method? (it's passed as a query string in the view)
I've got as far as learning that I can pass a context object when initialising my serialiser and that serialiser functions can access data within that, but I can't see how to include the output of those functions as a serialiser field. I've also found this thread, which is my fallback plan, but both that thread's author and I are suspicious that if that were the right way of doing something that seems like it must come up a lot, DRF would have included a lot less hacky pathway to doing it. So am I just thinking about this wrong?
I've found a way:
When instantiating the EvaluationSerializer class, I optionally pass in a context argument as mentioned in the OP, described here.
All methods of the class then have access to that object. The part I was missing is described in this StackOverflow answer:
Create a custom method field on the object, and define a method called get_<custom_field_name> to set the value. So the Evaluation class looks like this:
class EvaluationSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
converted_cost_per_output = serializers.SerializerMethodField()
def get_converted_cost_per_output(self, evaluation):
currency_code = self.context['currency'].upper()
return CurrencyConverter().convert(evaluation.cents_per_output / 100, 'USD', currency_code)
(and there's no method defined on the model)
I am trying to rewrite get_by_natural_key method on django manager (models.Manager). After adding model (NexchangeModel) I can delete all() objects but single - cannot.
Can:
SmsToken.objects.all().delete()
Cannot:
SmsTokent.objects.last().delete()
Code:
from django.db import models
from core.common.models import SoftDeletableModel, TimeStampedModel, UniqueFieldMixin
class NexchangeManager(models.Manager):
def get_by_natural_key(self, param):
qs = self.get_queryset()
lookup = {qs.model.NATURAL_KEY: param}
return self.get(**lookup)
class NexchangeModel(models.Model):
class Meta:
abstract = True
objects = NexchangeManager()
class SmsToken(NexchangeModel, SoftDeletableModel, UniqueFieldMixin):
sms_token = models.CharField(
max_length=4, blank=True)
user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='sms_token')
send_count = models.IntegerField(default=0)
While you are calling:
SmsToken.objects.all().delete() you are calling the queryset's delete method.
But on SmsTokent.objects.last().delete() you are calling the instance's delete method.
After django 1.9 queryset delete method returns no of items deleted. REF
Changed in Django 1.9:
The return value describing the number of objects deleted was added.
But on instance delete method Django already knows only one row will be deleted.
Also note that querset's delete method and instance's delete method are different.
The delete()[on a querset] method does a bulk delete and does not call any delete() methods on your models[instance method]. It does, however, emit the pre_delete and post_delete signals for all deleted objects (including cascaded deletions).
So you cannot rely on the response of the method to check if the delete worked fine or not. But in terms of python's philosophy "Ask for forgiveness than for permission". That means you can rely on exceptions to see if a delete has worked properly the way it should. Django's ORM will raise proper exceptions and do proper rollbacks in case of any failure.
So you can do this:
try:
instance.delete()/querset.delete()
except Exception as e:
# some code to notify failure / raise to propagate it
# you can avoid this try..except if you want to propagate exceptions as well.
Note: I am catching generic Exception because the only code in my try block is delete. If you wish to have some other code then you must catch specific exceptions only.
I assume that SoftDeletableModel comes from the django-model-utils package? If so, the purpose of that model is to mark instances with an is_removed field rather than actually deleting them. So it's to be expected that calling delete() on a model instance—which is what you get from last()—wouldn't actually delete anything.
SoftDeletableModel provides an objects attribute with a manager that limits its results to non-removed objects, and overrides delete() to mark objects as removed instead of actually deleting them.
The problem is that you've defined your own manager as objects, so the SoftDeletableModel manager isn't being used. Your custom manager is actually bulk deleting objects from the database, contrary to the goal of doing a soft delete. The way to resolve this is to have your custom manager inherit from SoftDeletableManagerMixin:
class NexchangeManager(SoftDeletableManagerMixin, models.Manager):
# your custom code
I have a Django model where a lot of fields are choices. So I had to write a lot of "is_something" properties of the class to check whether the instance value is equal to some choice value. Something along the lines of:
class MyModel(models.Model):
some_choicefield = models.IntegerField(choices=SOME_CHOICES)
#property
def is_some_value(self):
return self.some_choicefield == SOME_CHOICES.SOME_CHOICE_VALUE
# a lot of these...
In order to automate this and spare me a lot of redundant code, I thought about patching the instance at creation, with a function that adds a bunch of methods that do the checks.
The code became as follows (I'm assuming there's a "normalize" function that makes the label of the choice a usable function name):
def dynamic_add_checks(instance, field):
if hasattr(field, 'choices'):
choices = getattr(field, 'choices')
for (value,label) in choices:
def fun(instance):
return getattr(instance, field.name) == value
normalized_func_name = "is_%s_%s" % (field.name, normalize(label))
setattr(instance, normalized_func_name, fun(instance))
class MyModel(models.Model):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(MyModel).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
dynamic_add_checks(self, self._meta.get_field('some_choicefield')
some_choicefield = models.IntegerField(choices=SOME_CHOICES)
Now, this works but I have the feeling there is a better way to do it. Perhaps at class creation time (with metaclasses or in the new method)? Do you have any thoughts/suggestions about that?
Well I am not sure how to do this in your way, but in such cases I think the way to go is to simply create a new model, where you keep your choices, and change the field to ForeignKey. This is simpler to code and manage.
You can find a lot of information at a basic level in Django docs: Models: Relationships. In there, there are many links to follow expanding on various topics. Beyong that, I believe it just needs a bit of imagination, and maybe trial and error in the beginning.
I came across a similar problem where I needed to write large number of properties at runtime to provide backward compatibility while changing model fields. There are 2 standard ways to handle this -
First is to use a custom metaclass in your models, which inherits from models default metaclass.
Second, is to use class decorators. Class decorators sometimes provides an easy alternative to metaclasses, unless you have to do something before the creation of class, in which case you have to go with metaclasses.
I bet you know Django fields with choices provided will automatically have a display function.
Say you have a field defined like this:
category = models.SmallIntegerField(choices=CHOICES)
You can simply call a function called get_category_display() to access the display value. Here is the Django source code of this feature:
https://github.com/django/django/blob/baff4dd37dabfef1ff939513fa45124382b57bf8/django/db/models/base.py#L962
https://github.com/django/django/blob/baff4dd37dabfef1ff939513fa45124382b57bf8/django/db/models/fields/init.py#L704
So we can follow this approach to achieve our dynamically set property goal.
Here is my scenario, a little bit different from yours but down to the end it's the same:
I have two classes, Course and Lesson, class Lesson has a ForeignKey field of Course, and I want to add a property name cached_course to class Lesson which will try to get Course from cache first, and fallback to database if cache misses:
Here is a typical solution:
from django.db import models
class Course(models.Model):
# some fields
class Lesson(models.Model):
course = models.ForeignKey(Course)
#property
def cached_course(self):
key = key_func()
course = cache.get(key)
if not course:
course = get_model_from_db()
cache.set(key, course)
return course
Turns out I have so many ForeignKey fields to cache, so here is the code following the similar approach of Django get_FIELD_display feature:
from django.db import models
from django.utils.functional import curry
class CachedForeignKeyField(models.ForeignKey):
def contribute_to_class(self, cls, name, **kwargs):
super(models.ForeignKey, self).contribute_to_class(cls, name, **kwargs)
setattr(cls, "cached_%s" % self.name,
property(curry(cls._cached_FIELD, field=self)))
class BaseModel(models.Model):
def _cached_FIELD(self, field):
value = getattr(self, field.attname)
Model = field.related_model
return cache.get_model(Model, pk=value)
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Course(BaseModel):
# some fields
class Lesson(BaseModel):
course = CachedForeignKeyField(Course)
By customizing CachedForeignKeyField, and overwrite the contribute_to_class method, along with BaseModel class with a _cached_FIELD method, every CachedForeignKeyField will automatically have a cached_FIELD property accordingly.
Too good to be true, bravo!
This is a very simple question: Is there any good way to disable calling a bulk-delete (through querysets of course) on all models in an entire Django project?
The reasoning for this is under the premise that completely deleting data is almost always a poor choice, and an accidental bulk-delete can be detrimental.
Like comments says on your first post, you have to create a subclass for each of these elements:
The model manager
Queryset class
BaseModel
After some search, a great example can be found here, all credits to Akshay Shah, the blog author. Before looking to the code, be aware of that:
However, it inevitably leads to data corruption. The problem is simple: using a Boolean to store deletion status makes it impossible to enforce uniqueness constraints in your database.
from django.db import models
from django.db.models.query import QuerySet
class SoftDeletionQuerySet(QuerySet):
def delete(self):
# Bulk delete bypasses individual objects' delete methods.
return super(SoftDeletionQuerySet, self).update(alive=False)
def hard_delete(self):
return super(SoftDeletionQuerySet, self).delete()
def alive(self):
return self.filter(alive=True)
def dead(self):
return self.exclude(alive=True)
class SoftDeletionManager(models.Manager):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
self.alive_only = kwargs.pop('alive_only', True)
super(SoftDeletionManager, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
def get_queryset(self):
if self.alive_only:
return SoftDeletionQuerySet(self.model).filter(alive=True)
return SoftDeletionQuerySet(self.model)
def hard_delete(self):
return self.get_queryset().hard_delete()
class SoftDeletionModel(models.Model):
alive = models.BooleanField(default=True)
objects = SoftDeletionManager()
all_objects = SoftDeletionManager(alive_only=False)
class Meta:
abstract = True
def delete(self):
self.alive = False
self.save()
def hard_delete(self):
super(SoftDeletionModel, self).delete()
Basically, it adds an alive field to check if the row has been deleted or not, and update it when the delete() method is called.
Of course, this method works only on project where you can manipulate the code base.
There are nice off-the-shelf applications that allow for restoring deleted models (if that is what you are interested in), here are ones I used:
Django softdelete: https://github.com/scoursen/django-softdelete I used it more
Django reversion: https://github.com/etianen/django-reversion this one is updated more often, and allows you to revert to any version of your model (not only after delete, but as well after update).
If you really want to forbid bulk deletes, I'd discourage you from this approach as it will:
Break expectations about applicaiton behaviour. If I call MyModel.objects.all().delete() I want table to be empty afterwards.
Break existing applications.
If you want do do it please follow advice from comment:
I'm guessing this would involve subclassing QuerySet and changing the delete method to your liking, subclassing the default manager and have it use your custom query set, subclassing model - create an abstract model and have it use your custom manager and then finally have all your models subclass your custom abstract model.
I was wondering if it was possible (and, if so, how) to chain together multiple managers to produce a query set that is affected by both of the individual managers. I'll explain the specific example that I'm working on:
I have multiple abstract model classes that I use to provide small, specific functionality to other models. Two of these models are a DeleteMixin and a GlobalMixin.
The DeleteMixin is defined as such:
class DeleteMixin(models.Model):
deleted = models.BooleanField(default=False)
objects = DeleteManager()
class Meta:
abstract = True
def delete(self):
self.deleted = True
self.save()
Basically it provides a pseudo-delete (the deleted flag) instead of actually deleting the object.
The GlobalMixin is defined as such:
class GlobalMixin(models.Model):
is_global = models.BooleanField(default=True)
objects = GlobalManager()
class Meta:
abstract = True
It allows any object to be defined as either a global object or a private object (such as a public/private blog post).
Both of these have their own managers that affect the queryset that is returned. My DeleteManager filters the queryset to only return results that have the deleted flag set to False, while the GlobalManager filters the queryset to only return results that are marked as global. Here is the declaration for both:
class DeleteManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
return super(DeleteManager, self).get_query_set().filter(deleted=False)
class GlobalManager(models.Manager):
def globals(self):
return self.get_query_set().filter(is_global=1)
The desired functionality would be to have a model extend both of these abstract models and grant the ability to only return the results that are both non-deleted and global. I ran a test case on a model with 4 instances: one was global and non-deleted, one was global and deleted, one was non-global and non-deleted, and one was non-global and deleted. If I try to get result sets as such: SomeModel.objects.all(), I get instance 1 and 3 (the two non-deleted ones - great!). If I try SomeModel.objects.globals(), I get an error that DeleteManager doesn't have a globals (this is assuming my model declaration is as such: SomeModel(DeleteMixin, GlobalMixin). If I reverse the order, I don't get the error, but it doesn't filter out the deleted ones). If I change GlobalMixin to attach GlobalManager to globals instead of objects (so the new command would be SomeModel.globals.globals()), I get instances 1 and 2 (the two globals), while my intended result would be to only get instance 1 (the global, non-deleted one).
I wasn't sure if anyone had run into any situation similar to this and had come to a result. Either a way to make it work in my current thinking or a re-work that provides the functionality I'm after would be very much appreciated. I know this post has been a little long-winded. If any more explanation is needed, I would be glad to provide it.
Edit:
I have posted the eventual solution I used to this specific problem below. It is based on the link to Simon's custom QuerySetManager.
See this snippet on Djangosnippets: http://djangosnippets.org/snippets/734/
Instead of putting your custom methods in a manager, you subclass the queryset itself. It's very easy and works perfectly. The only issue I've had is with model inheritance, you always have to define the manager in model subclasses (just: "objects = QuerySetManager()" in the subclass), even though they will inherit the queryset. This will make more sense once you are using QuerySetManager.
Here is the specific solution to my problem using the custom QuerySetManager by Simon that Scott linked to.
from django.db import models
from django.contrib import admin
from django.db.models.query import QuerySet
from django.core.exceptions import FieldError
class MixinManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
try:
return self.model.MixinQuerySet(self.model).filter(deleted=False)
except FieldError:
return self.model.MixinQuerySet(self.model)
class BaseMixin(models.Model):
admin = models.Manager()
objects = MixinManager()
class MixinQuerySet(QuerySet):
def globals(self):
try:
return self.filter(is_global=True)
except FieldError:
return self.all()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class DeleteMixin(BaseMixin):
deleted = models.BooleanField(default=False)
class Meta:
abstract = True
def delete(self):
self.deleted = True
self.save()
class GlobalMixin(BaseMixin):
is_global = models.BooleanField(default=True)
class Meta:
abstract = True
Any mixin in the future that wants to add extra functionality to the query set simply needs to extend BaseMixin (or have it somewhere in its heirarchy). Any time I try to filter the query set down, I wrapped it in a try-catch in case that field doesn't actually exist (ie, it doesn't extend that mixin). The global filter is invoked using globals(), while the delete filter is automatically invoked (if something is deleted, I never want it to show). Using this system allows for the following types of commands:
TemporaryModel.objects.all() # If extending DeleteMixin, no deleted instances are returned
TemporaryModel.objects.all().globals() # Filter out the private instances (non-global)
TemporaryModel.objects.filter(...) # Ditto about excluding deleteds
One thing to note is that the delete filter won't affect admin interfaces, because the default Manager is declared first (making it the default). I don't remember when they changed the admin to use Model._default_manager instead of Model.objects, but any deleted instances will still appear in the admin (in case you need to un-delete them).
I spent a while trying to come up with a way to build a nice factory to do this, but I'm running into a lot of problems with that.
The best I can suggest to you is to chain your inheritance. It's not very generic, so I'm not sure how useful it is, but all you would have to do is:
class GlobalMixin(DeleteMixin):
is_global = models.BooleanField(default=True)
objects = GlobalManager()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class GlobalManager(DeleteManager):
def globals(self):
return self.get_query_set().filter(is_global=1)
If you want something more generic, the best I can come up with is to define a base Mixin and Manager that redefines get_query_set() (I'm assuming you only want to do this once; things get pretty complicated otherwise) and then pass a list of fields you'd want added via Mixins.
It would look something like this (not tested at all):
class DeleteMixin(models.Model):
deleted = models.BooleanField(default=False)
class Meta:
abstract = True
def create_mixin(base_mixin, **kwargs):
class wrapper(base_mixin):
class Meta:
abstract = True
for k in kwargs.keys():
setattr(wrapper, k, kwargs[k])
return wrapper
class DeleteManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
return super(DeleteManager, self).get_query_set().filter(deleted=False)
def create_manager(base_manager, **kwargs):
class wrapper(base_manager):
pass
for k in kwargs.keys():
setattr(wrapper, k, kwargs[k])
return wrapper
Ok, so this is ugly, but what does it get you? Essentially, it's the same solution, but much more dynamic, and a little more DRY, though more complex to read.
First you create your manager dynamically:
def globals(inst):
return inst.get_query_set().filter(is_global=1)
GlobalDeleteManager = create_manager(DeleteManager, globals=globals)
This creates a new manager which is a subclass of DeleteManager and has a method called globals.
Next, you create your mixin model:
GlobalDeleteMixin = create_mixin(DeleteMixin,
is_global=models.BooleanField(default=False),
objects = GlobalDeleteManager())
Like I said, it's ugly. But it means you don't have to redefine globals(). If you want a different type of manager to have globals(), you just call create_manager again with a different base. And you can add as many new methods as you like. Same for the manager, you just keep adding new functions that will return different querysets.
So, is this really practical? Maybe not. This answer is more an exercise in (ab)using Python's flexibility. I haven't tried using this, though I do use some of the underlying principals of dynamically extending classes to make things easier to access.
Let me know if anything is unclear and I'll update the answer.
Another option worth considering is the PassThroughManager:
https://django-model-utils.readthedocs.org/en/latest/managers.html#passthroughmanager
You should use QuerySet instead of Manager.
See Documentation here.