I have the following QuerySet:
MyModel.objects
.order_by("foreign_key_id")
.distinct("foreign_key_id")
.in_bulk(field_name="foreign_key_id")
foreign_key_id is not unique on MyModel but given the use of distinct should be unique within the QuerySet.
However when this runs the following error is raised:
"ValueError: in_bulk()'s field_name must be a unique field but 'foreign_key_id' isn't."
According to the Django docs on in_bulk here it should be possible to use in_bulk with distinct in this way. The ability was added to Django in response to this issue ticket here.
What do I need to change here to make this work?
I'm using Django3.1 with Postgres11.
As the documentation of in_bulk(…) says:
(…)
Changed in Django 3.2:
Using a distinct field was allowed.
Since you use django-3.1, this will thus not work, you will thus have to upgrade your program to django-3.2.
Related
Recently I found out that its possible to define Django form validation directly in the models.py file. This can be done the following way:
fev1_liter = models.DecimalField(validators=[MaxValueValidator(8.2),
MinValueValidator(0.3)],
max_digits=3, decimal_places=2)
This is an awesome alternative to validation in forms.py, but I do have a very annoying problem:
How can I control in which order the validation is executed?
In this example Django will first validate if the inputs digits is in the format x.xx and thereafter min and max value. This results in some very confusing error messages.
Thanks in advance!
For each model field, field.clean() first performs field validation via field.validate(), then via field.run_validators(), validators are called in order they are returned from the field.validators iterator.
This makes sense, because in the general case you can expect your validators to fail if the field validation failed, so it makes for easier debugging. Remember that field validators are non-obligatory, so field.validate() takes precedence. If you want to change the behavior, you'll have to create your own Field classes and override the field.clean() behavior.
You can inspect the field sources for more details.
I'm fairly new to django web development. And I got an error whereby I try to change a 'post' under admin url - so localhost:8080/admin. I'm able to create it successfully but when I try to click the post that I had just added. I'm getting this error:
Exception Type: DatabaseError Exception Value: This query is not
supported by the database.
And this is the code that I know is 'messing' with this query:
#Post is an abstract class
class BlogPost(Post):
...
translators = models.ManyToManyField(Staff, related_name='translators')
photographers = models.ManyToManyField(Staff, related_name='photographers')
authors = models.ManyToManyField(Staff, related_name='authors')
...
To explain what is going on with this blog post - it can have multiple 'owners'/people that contributed to this post and thus the decision using ManyToManyField. And vice-versa with the 'Staff' member - the type of 'member' can have multiple ownership on multiple posts (Let me know if this logic doesn't make any sense because it does to me).
I'm using mongodb for the database, django 1.5.11 and I have installed djangotoolbox. I've tried the following solutions with adding a relationship to BlogPost as shown below:
Class Staff(Member):
...
staff_posts = models.ManyToManyField(BlogPost, related_name="staff_posts")
...
But I'm getting an error on 'cannot import BlogPost'. I tried figuring out the reason of this error and I don't think that I have a circular dependance - after checking all of the files, there's no circular dependance.
MongoDB (or mongoengine, which I'm guessing you're using) doesn't support joins, so the typical way to model many-to-many relations in a relational database has to be implemented some other way.
One way is to use a ReferenceField inside a ListField. It might look like this (not tested):
class BlogPost(Post):
authors = models.ListField(models.ReferenceField(Staff))
...
Also see these answers:
https://stackoverflow.com/a/18747306/98057
https://stackoverflow.com/a/25568877/98057
Just to put it out there, I'm not real familiar with MongoDB.
However, I don't believe you need to define a ManyToManyField on your Staff class. You already have a ManyToMany defined in your BlogPost, having it defined in one class file is all that is required. (At least for MySQL).
I've been using the built-in Django comments system which has been working great. On a particular page I need to list the latest X comments which I've just been fetching with:
latest_comments =
Comment.objects.filter(is_public=True, is_removed=False)
.order_by('submit_date').reverse()[:5]
However I've now introduced a Boolean field 'published' into the parent object of the comments, and I want to include that in the query above. I've tried using the content_type and object_pk fields but I'm not really getting anywhere. Normally you'd do something like:
Comment.objects.filter(blogPost__published=True)
But as it is not stored like that I am not sure how to proceed.
posts_ids = BlogPost.objects.filter(is_published=True).values_list('id', flat=True) #return [3,4,5,...]
ctype = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(BlogPost)
latest_comments = Comment.objects.filter(is_public=True, is_removed=False, content_type=ctype, content_object__in=posts_ids).order_by('-submit_date')[:5]
Comments use GenericForeignKey to store the relation to parent object. Because of the way generic relations work related lookups using __<field> syntax are not supported.
You can accomplish the desired behaviour using the 'in' lookup, however it'll require lot of comparisons when there'll be a lot of BlogPosts.
ids = BlogPost.objects.filter(published=True).values_list('id', flat=True) # Get list of ids, you would probably want to limit number of items returned here
content_type = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(BlogPost) # Becasue we filter only comments for BlogPost
latest_comments = Comment.objects.filter(content_type=content_type, object_pk__in=ids, is_public=True, is_removed=False, ).order_by('submit_date').reverse()[:5]
See the Comment model doc for the description of all fields.
You just cannot do that in one query. Comments use GenericForeignKey. Documentation says:
Due to the way GenericForeignKey is implemented, you cannot use such
fields directly with filters (filter() and exclude(), for example) via
the database API.
This is a fun one :-)
Working on an EAV, we inject a generic relationship handler at runtime in a model.
model_cls is any class, and a EavValue class have a generic relation pointing to it. It works fine from EavValues to a model_cls, but on the other way we need to inject an accessor to ease things:
generic_relation = generic.GenericRelation(EavValue,
object_id_field='entity_id',
content_type_field='entity_ct',
related_name=model_cls.__name__)
generic_relation.contribute_to_class(model_cls, 'eav_values')
Again, we do that at runtime because we want to make it work with untouchable 3rd party libs.
While unittesting with a Patient class as model_cls, we get the following error:
eav_ng.patient: Accessor for m2m field 'eav_values' clashes with related m2m field 'EavValue.Patient'. Add a related_name argument to the definition for 'eav_values'.
Now, we thought the easy fix was to change either the second parameter of contribute_to_class or related_name in GenericRelation, but it doesn't! We get exactly the same error, only with different name.
Second strange thing, running the same unittests with Sqlite instead of MySql: all pass.
What's more, no matters the order or the tests, we always get this error at the second tests. Since this process happen in a register method and that we call register and unregister at setup and tear down, I'm guessing our unregister method is imperfect.
Last strange fact: we get the error while running unittest, but we are unable to reproduce it manually. Worst, on my colleague computer, it doesn't get the error while we are using the same version of Python, Django, Ubuntu and MySQL.
We solved a lot of hard ones but we are kind of stuck on this one so any clue appreciated.
UPDATE:
New clues for this great game:
Errors are raised from this snippet in django.core.management.validation, on line 245 (django 1.2.1):
for r in rel_opts.get_all_related_many_to_many_objects():
if r.field is not f:
if r.get_accessor_name() == rel_name:
e.add(opts, "Accessor for m2m field '%s' clashes with related m2m field '%s.%s'. Add a related_name argument to the definition for '%s'." % (f.name, rel_opts.object_name, r.get_accessor_name(), f.name))
if r.get_accessor_name() == rel_query_name:
e.add(opts, "Reverse query name for m2m field '%s' clashes with related m2m field '%s.%s'. Add a related_name argument to the definition for '%s'." % (f.name, rel_opts.object_name, r.get_accessor_name(), f.name))
For us r.get_accessor_name() == rel_name is True, as both are "Patient".
UPDATE 2:
When we add an app that register a model. Any model, the problem doesn't appear anymore. So much for the unregister theory...
We at two symmetrical errors (both sides of the relation). Removing related_name suppress one of the errors 0_o
Found the solution
Adding a generic relation on put a reference in the model class _meta.local_many_to_many attribute which is a list. Django check against that but provides no way to get rid of it. Fix is:
# remove remaining reference to the generic relation
for field in model_cls._meta.local_many_to_many:
if field.name == 'eav_value': # your related name
model_cls._meta.local_many_to_many.remove(field)
break
I'd like to have access to one my model field verbose_name.
I can get it by the field indice like this
model._meta._fields()[2].verbose_name
but I need to get it dynamically. Ideally it would be something like this
model._meta._fields()['location_x'].verbose_name
I've looked at a few things but I just can't find it.
For Django < 1.10:
model._meta.get_field_by_name('location_x')[0].verbose_name
model._meta.get_field('location_x').verbose_name
For Django 1.11 and 2.0:
MyModel._meta.get_field('my_field_name').verbose_name
More info in the Django doc
The selected answer gives a proxy object which might look as below.
<django.utils.functional.__proxy__ object at 0x{SomeMemoryLocation}>
If anyone is seeing the same, you can find the string for the verbose name in the title() member function of the proxy object.
model._meta.get_field_by_name(header)[0].verbose_name.title()
A better way to write this would be:
model._meta.get_field(header).verbose_name.title()
where header will be the name of the field you are interested in. i.e., 'location-x' in OPs context.
NOTE: Developers of Django also feel that using get_field is better and thus have depreciated get_field_by_name in Django 1.10. Thus I would suggest using get_field no matter what version of Django you use.
model._meta.get_field_by_name('location_x')[0].verbose_name
You can also use:
Model.location_x.field.verbose_name
Model being the class name. I tested this on my Animal model:
Animal.sale_price.field.verbose_name
Animal.sale_price returns a DeferredAttribute, which has several meta data, like the verbose_name
Note: I'm using Django 3.1.5
If you want to iterate on all the fields you need to get the field:
for f in BotUser._meta.get_fields():
if hasattr(f, 'verbose_name'):
print(f.verbose_name)
# select fields for bulk_update : exclude primary key and relational
fieldsfields_to_update = []
for field_to_update in Model._meta.get_fields():
if not field_to_update.many_to_many and not field_to_update.many_to_one and not field_to_update.one_to_many and not field_to_update.one_to_one and not field_to_update.primary_key and not field_to_update.is_relation :
fields_to_update = fields_to_update + [field_to_update.name]
Model.objects.bulk_update(models_to_update , fields_to_update)