class PurchaseOrder(models.Model):
purchase_order_id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
purchase_order_number = models.CharField(unique=True)
vendor = models.ForeignKey(Vendor)
i am creating Purchase Order(po) table. when po created i have to update purchase_order_number as "PO0"+purchase_order_id ex PO0123 (123 is Primary key). so i am using def save in models to accomplish this
def save(self):
if self.purchase_order_id is not None:
self.purchase_order_number = "PO"+str(self.purchase_order_id)
return super(PurchaseOrder, self).save()
It is working fine with single creation but when i try to create bulk of data using locust(Testing tool) its giving an error duplicate entry for PurchseOrdernumber Can we modify field value in models itself some thing like this
purchase_order_number = models.CharField(unique=True,default=("PO"+self.purchase_order_id )
To be honest, I don't think it should work when you create multiple instances. Because as I can see from the code:
if self.purchase_order_id is not None:
self.purchase_order_number = "PO"+str(self.purchase_order_id)
Here purchase_order_id will be None when you are creating new instance. Also, until you call super(PurchaseOrder, self).save(), it will not generate purchase_order_id, meaning purchase_order_number will be empty.
So, what I would recommend is to not store this information in DB. Its basically the same as purchase_order_id with PO in front of it. Instead you can use a property method to get the same value. Like this:
class PurchaseOrder(models.Model):
purchase_order_id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
# need to remove `purchase_order_number = models.CharField(unique=True)`
...
#property
def purchase_order_number(self):
return "PO{}".format(self.purchase_order_id)
So, you can also see the purchase_order_number like this:
p = PurchaseOrder.objects.first()
p.purchase_order_number
Downside of this solution is that, you can't make any query on the property field. But I don't think it would be necessary anyway, because you can do the same query for the purchase_order_id, ie PurchaseOrder.objects.filter(purchase_order_id=1).
my models.py
class WebFieldType(models.Model):
WEBFIELD_CHOICES = ( ('FACEBOOK', 'fb'), ('INSTAGRAM', 'Insta') )
webfield_type = models.CharField(null=True, blank=True, max_length=30, choices=WEBFIELD_CHOICES)
def __unicode__(self):
return '{}'.format(self.webfield_type)
class WebTokens(models.Model):
token_name = models.TextField()
web_field_type = models.ManyToManyField(WebFieldType)
def __unicode__(self):
return '{}-{}'.format(self.token_name,self.web_field_type )
Now in shell if I do like:
WebFieldType.objects.all().values('webfield_type'), it is returning [{'webfield_type' : 'FACEBOOK'}, {'webfield_type' : 'INSTAGARAM'}]
But if I do like
WebTokens.objects.all().values('token_name','web_field_type') it is returning
[{'token_name' : 'some_token_name', 'web_field_type' : 1}]
As you can see in web_field_type it is returning id, but I need name.
Even tried using return '{}'.format(self.get_webfield_type_display()) in WebTokens model but in vain.
So basically I need everything that is stored in WebTokens model when I make a call to it.
You did not specify what is template_name attribute in the WebTokens model. But I'll try to get your point. What are doing is that you take the values from ManyToMany field which is in your case web_field_type: 1. So if you want to get all vallues from the model and serialize it, then it would be more complicated than this. Consider creating method in WebTokens model.
EDITED
#property
def web_field_type_types(self):
names = list()
for obj in self.web_field_type.all():
names.append(obj.get_type_display())
return str(names)
And then using it in your queries so you can get string of ids with
webtoken.web_field_type_types
I have a History model like below
class History(models.Model):
class Meta:
app_label = 'subscription'
ordering = ['-start_datetime']
subscription = models.ForeignKey(Subscription, related_name='history')
FREE = 'free'
Premium = 'premium'
SUBSCRIPTION_TYPE_CHOICES = ((FREE, 'Free'), (Premium, 'Premium'),)
name = models.CharField(max_length=32, choices=SUBSCRIPTION_TYPE_CHOICES, default=FREE)
start_datetime = models.DateTimeField(db_index=True)
end_datetime = models.DateTimeField(db_index=True, blank=True, null=True)
cancelled_datetime = models.DateTimeField(blank=True, null=True)
Now i have a queryset filtering like below
users = get_user_model().objects.all()
queryset = users.exclude(subscription__history__end_datetime__lt=timezone.now())
The issue is that in the exclude above it is checking end_datetime for all the rows for a particular history object. But i only want to compare it with first row of history object.
Below is how a particular history object looks like. So i want to write a queryset filter which can do datetime comparison on first row only.
You could use a Model Manager method for this. The documentation isn't all that descriptive, but you could do something along the lines of:
class SubscriptionManager(models.Manager):
def my_filter(self):
# You'd want to make this a smaller query most likely
subscriptions = Subscription.objects.all()
results = []
for subscription in subscriptions:
sub_history = subscription.history_set.first()
if sub_history.end_datetime > timezone.now:
results.append(subscription)
return results
class History(models.Model):
subscription = models.ForeignKey(Subscription)
end_datetime = models.DateTimeField(db_index=True, blank=True, null=True)
objects = SubscriptionManager()
Then: queryset = Subscription.objects().my_filter()
Not a copy-pastable answer, but shows the use of Managers. Given the specificity of what you're looking for, I don't think there's a way to get it just via the plain filter() and exclude().
Without knowing what your end goal here is, it's hard to say whether this is feasible, but have you considered adding a property to the subscription model that indicates whatever you're looking for? For example, if you're trying to get everyone who has a subscription that's ending:
class Subscription(models.Model):
#property
def ending(self):
if self.end_datetime > timezone.now:
return True
else:
return False
Then in your code: queryset = users.filter(subscription_ending=True)
I have tried django's all king of expressions(aggregate, query, conditional) but was unable to solve the problem so i went with RawSQL and it solved the problem.
I have used the below SQL to select the first row and then compare the end_datetime
SELECT (end_datetime > %s OR end_datetime IS NULL) AS result
FROM subscription_history
ORDER BY start_datetime DESC
LIMIT 1;
I will select my answer as accepted if not found a solution with queryset filter chaining in next 2 days.
I have a html table w/ javascript that allows ordering of rows which passes the track_id list and row order list through a form on POST.
I just added the class PlaylistTrack using through for the model so I can add ordering to the tracks.m2m field. The view I have below works before I added the through model, but now I am not sure how I should save a list of tracks w/ its associated order number since I can't use add() and I must use create(). How should I use create() in my view to save a list of track_id's and associate the order number w/ list? Can I use bulk_create?
models.py:
class Playlist(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL, default=1)
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
tracks = models.ManyToManyField(Track, through='PlaylistTrack')
def __str__(self):
return self.name
class PlaylistTrack(models.Model):
track = models.ForeignKey(Track)
playlist = models.ForeignKey(Playlist)
order = models.PositiveIntegerField()
class Meta:
ordering = ['order']
views.py:
def add_track(request):
active_playlist = Playlist.objects.get(id=request.POST.get('playlist_id'))
add_tracks = request.POST.getlist('track_id')
if request.POST.get('playlist_id'):
active_playlist.tracks.add(*add_tracks) # how to use create or bulk_create?
return redirect("playlists:list_playlists")
Ozgur's answer has you mostly covered. However, you do NOT need to fetch Playlist or Track instances from the database and you CAN use bulk_create:
def add_track(request):
playlist_id = request.POST.get('playlist_id')
track_ids = enumerate(request.POST.getlist('track_id'), start=1)
PlaylistTrack.objects.bulk_create([
PlaylistTrack(playlist_id=playlist_id, track_id=track_id, order=i)
for i, track_id in track_ids
])
return redirect("playlists:list_playlists")
This reduces the entire procedure to a single db operation where you had (1 + 2n) operations before (n being the number of tracks).
You need to fetch Track objects that will be added:
Track.objects.filter(pk__in=add_tracks)
--
Since order field must be populated, you can't use .add() on M2M field. You gotta create objects by yourself:
def add_track(request):
playlist = Playlist.objects.get(id=request.POST.get('playlist_id'))
for i, track_id in enumerate(request.POST.getlist('track_id'), start=1):
track = Track.objects.get(pk=track_id)
PlaylistTrack.objects.create(track=track, playlist=playlist, order=i)
return redirect("playlists:list_playlists")
I am running into a database issue in my unit tests. I think it has something to do with the way I am using TestCase and setUpData.
When I try to set up my test data with certain values, the tests throw the following error:
django.db.utils.IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
...
psycopg2.IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "InventoryLogs_productgroup_product_name_48ec6f8d_uniq"
DETAIL: Key (product_name)=(Almonds) already exists.
I changed all of my primary keys and it seems to be running fine. It doesn't seem to affect any of the tests.
However, I'm concerned that I am doing something wrong. When it first happened, I reversed about an hour's worth of work on my app (not that much code for a noob), which corrected the problem.
Then when I wrote the changes back in, the same issue presented itself again. TestCase is pasted below. The issue seems to occur after I add the sortrecord items, but corresponds with the items above it.
I don't want to keep going through and changing primary keys and urls in my tests, so if anyone sees something wrong with the way I am using this, please help me out. Thanks!
TestCase
class DetailsPageTest(TestCase):
#classmethod
def setUpTestData(cls):
cls.product1 = ProductGroup.objects.create(
product_name="Almonds"
)
cls.variety1 = Variety.objects.create(
product_group = cls.product1,
variety_name = "non pareil",
husked = False,
finished = False,
)
cls.supplier1 = Supplier.objects.create(
company_name = "Acme",
company_location = "Acme Acres",
contact_info = "Call me!"
)
cls.shipment1 = Purchase.objects.create(
tag=9,
shipment_id=9999,
supplier_id = cls.supplier1,
purchase_date='2015-01-09',
purchase_price=9.99,
product_name=cls.variety1,
pieces=99,
kgs=999,
crackout_estimate=99.9
)
cls.shipment2 = Purchase.objects.create(
tag=8,
shipment_id=8888,
supplier_id=cls.supplier1,
purchase_date='2015-01-08',
purchase_price=8.88,
product_name=cls.variety1,
pieces=88,
kgs=888,
crackout_estimate=88.8
)
cls.shipment3 = Purchase.objects.create(
tag=7,
shipment_id=7777,
supplier_id=cls.supplier1,
purchase_date='2014-01-07',
purchase_price=7.77,
product_name=cls.variety1,
pieces=77,
kgs=777,
crackout_estimate=77.7
)
cls.sortrecord1 = SortingRecords.objects.create(
tag=cls.shipment1,
date="2015-02-05",
bags_sorted=20,
turnout=199,
)
cls.sortrecord2 = SortingRecords.objects.create(
tag=cls.shipment1,
date="2015-02-07",
bags_sorted=40,
turnout=399,
)
cls.sortrecord3 = SortingRecords.objects.create(
tag=cls.shipment1,
date='2015-02-09',
bags_sorted=30,
turnout=299,
)
Models
from datetime import datetime
from django.db import models
from django.db.models import Q
class ProductGroup(models.Model):
product_name = models.CharField(max_length=140, primary_key=True)
def __str__(self):
return self.product_name
class Meta:
verbose_name = "Product"
class Supplier(models.Model):
company_name = models.CharField(max_length=45)
company_location = models.CharField(max_length=45)
contact_info = models.CharField(max_length=256)
class Meta:
ordering = ["company_name"]
def __str__(self):
return self.company_name
class Variety(models.Model):
product_group = models.ForeignKey(ProductGroup)
variety_name = models.CharField(max_length=140)
husked = models.BooleanField()
finished = models.BooleanField()
description = models.CharField(max_length=500, blank=True)
class Meta:
ordering = ["product_group_id"]
verbose_name_plural = "Varieties"
def __str__(self):
return self.variety_name
class PurchaseYears(models.Manager):
def purchase_years_list(self):
unique_years = Purchase.objects.dates('purchase_date', 'year')
results_list = []
for p in unique_years:
results_list.append(p.year)
return results_list
class Purchase(models.Model):
tag = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True)
product_name = models.ForeignKey(Variety, related_name='purchases')
shipment_id = models.CharField(max_length=24)
supplier_id = models.ForeignKey(Supplier)
purchase_date = models.DateField()
estimated_delivery = models.DateField(null=True, blank=True)
purchase_price = models.DecimalField(max_digits=6, decimal_places=3)
pieces = models.IntegerField()
kgs = models.IntegerField()
crackout_estimate = models.DecimalField(max_digits=6,decimal_places=3, null=True)
crackout_actual = models.DecimalField(max_digits=6,decimal_places=3, null=True)
objects = models.Manager()
purchase_years = PurchaseYears()
# Keep manager as "objects" in case admin, etc. needs it. Filter can be called like so:
# Purchase.objects.purchase_years_list()
# Managers in docs: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.8/intro/tutorial01/
class Meta:
ordering = ["purchase_date"]
def __str__(self):
return self.shipment_id
def _weight_conversion(self):
return round(self.kgs * 2.20462)
lbs = property(_weight_conversion)
class SortingModelsBagsCalulator(models.Manager):
def total_sorted(self, record_date, current_set):
sorted = [SortingRecords['bags_sorted'] for SortingRecords in current_set if
SortingRecords['date'] <= record_date]
return sum(sorted)
class SortingRecords(models.Model):
tag = models.ForeignKey(Purchase, related_name='sorting_record')
date = models.DateField()
bags_sorted = models.IntegerField()
turnout = models.IntegerField()
objects = models.Manager()
def __str__(self):
return "%s [%s]" % (self.date, self.tag.tag)
class Meta:
ordering = ["date"]
verbose_name_plural = "Sorting Records"
def _calculate_kgs_sorted(self):
kg_per_bag = self.tag.kgs / self.tag.pieces
kgs_sorted = kg_per_bag * self.bags_sorted
return (round(kgs_sorted, 2))
kgs_sorted = property(_calculate_kgs_sorted)
def _byproduct(self):
waste = self.kgs_sorted - self.turnout
return (round(waste, 2))
byproduct = property(_byproduct)
def _bags_remaining(self):
current_set = SortingRecords.objects.values().filter(~Q(id=self.id), tag=self.tag)
sorted = [SortingRecords['bags_sorted'] for SortingRecords in current_set if
SortingRecords['date'] <= self.date]
remaining = self.tag.pieces - sum(sorted) - self.bags_sorted
return remaining
bags_remaining = property(_bags_remaining)
EDIT
It also fails with integers, like so.
django.db.utils.IntegrityError: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "InventoryLogs_purchase_pkey"
DETAIL: Key (tag)=(9) already exists.
UDPATE
So I should have mentioned this earlier, but I completely forgot. I have two unit test files that use the same data. Just for kicks, I matched a primary key in both instances of setUpTestData() to a different value and sure enough, I got the same error.
These two setups were working fine side-by-side before I added more data to one of them. Now, it appears that they need different values. I guess you can only get away with using repeat data for so long.
I continued to get this error without having any duplicate data but I was able to resolve the issue by initializing the object and calling the save() method rather than creating the object via Model.objects.create()
In other words, I did this:
#classmethod
def setUpTestData(cls):
cls.person = Person(first_name="Jane", last_name="Doe")
cls.person.save()
Instead of this:
#classmethod
def setUpTestData(cls):
cls.person = Person.objects.create(first_name="Jane", last_name="Doe")
I've been running into this issue sporadically for months now. I believe I just figured out the root cause and a couple solutions.
Summary
For whatever reason, it seems like the Django test case base classes aren't removing the database records created by let's just call it TestCase1 before running TestCase2. Which, in TestCase2 when it tries to create records in the database using the same IDs as TestCase1 the database raises a DuplicateKey exception because those IDs already exists in the database. And even saying the magic word "please" won't help with database duplicate key errors.
Good news is, there are multiple ways to solve this problem! Here are a couple...
Solution 1
Make sure if you are overriding the class method tearDownClass that you call super().tearDownClass(). If you override tearDownClass() without calling its super, it will in turn never call TransactionTestCase._post_teardown() nor TransactionTestCase._fixture_teardown(). Quoting from the doc string in TransactionTestCase._post_teardown()`:
def _post_teardown(self):
"""
Perform post-test things:
* Flush the contents of the database to leave a clean slate. If the
class has an 'available_apps' attribute, don't fire post_migrate.
* Force-close the connection so the next test gets a clean cursor.
"""
If TestCase.tearDownClass() is not called via super() then the database is not reset in between test cases and you will get the dreaded duplicate key exception.
Solution 2
Override TransactionTestCase and set the class variable serialized_rollback = True, like this:
class MyTestCase(TransactionTestCase):
fixtures = ['test-data.json']
serialized_rollback = True
def test_name_goes_here(self):
pass
Quoting from the source:
class TransactionTestCase(SimpleTestCase):
...
# If transactions aren't available, Django will serialize the database
# contents into a fixture during setup and flush and reload them
# during teardown (as flush does not restore data from migrations).
# This can be slow; this flag allows enabling on a per-case basis.
serialized_rollback = False
When serialized_rollback is set to True, Django test runner rolls back any transactions inserted into the database beween test cases. And batta bing, batta bang... no more duplicate key errors!
Conclusion
There are probably many more ways to implement a solution for the OP's issue, but these two should work nicely. Would definitely love to have more solutions added by others for clarity sake and a deeper understanding of the underlying Django test case base classes. Phew, say that last line real fast three times and you could win a pony!
The log you provided states DETAIL: Key (product_name)=(Almonds) already exists. Did you verify in your db?
To prevent such errors in the future, you should prefix all your test data string by test_
I discovered the issue, as noted at the bottom of the question.
From what I can tell, the database didn't like me using duplicate data in the setUpTestData() methods of two different tests. Changing the primary key values in the second test corrected the problem.
I think the problem here is that you had a tearDownClass method in your TestCase without the call to super method.
In this way the django TestCase lost the transactional functionalities behind the setUpTestData so it doesn't clean your test db after a TestCase is finished.
Check warning in django docs here:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.10/topics/testing/tools/#django.test.SimpleTestCase.allow_database_queries
I had similar problem that had been caused by providing the primary key value to a test case explicitly.
As discussed in the Django documentation, manually assigning a value to an auto-incrementing field doesn’t update the field’s sequence, which might later cause a conflict.
I have solved it by altering the sequence manually:
from django.db import connection
class MyTestCase(TestCase):
#classmethod
def setUpTestData(cls):
Model.objects.create(id=1)
with connection.cursor() as c:
c.execute(
"""
ALTER SEQUENCE "app_model_id_seq" RESTART WITH 2;
"""
)