I'm working on a small web-app that includes a filter with around 10/15 different fields,
since the user doesn't have to fill all the fields in order to be able to post the form, I implemented the below logic in order to avoid filtering the database with empty strings or values and obtain 0 results.
if not form.Price_from.data == "" and not form.Price_from.data == None:
Posts_filtered = Posts_filtered.filter(Post.Price >= form.Price_from.datas)
By doing this, I filter the column Post. Price only if the field form.Price_from field contains a value.
Since I have 10-15 fields, you can imagine that I have a lot of lines doing the same thing and I really do not like it. Since I'd like to add more fields in the future, my question is if there is a more efficient way to perform this action?
Do you think it would be faster to implement it with js? By doing that I should not need to send a post request every time and I'd save time.
Thank you!
you can use a helper function and loop through every field:
def is_filled(raw_data):
try:
value = raw_data[0]
if value == '':
return False
except (IndexError, TypeError):
return False
return True
(use raw_data from the field instead of data for this function)
you can more info here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/47450458/11699898
Related
Can anyone help, I want to return an ordered list based on forloop in Django using a field in the model that contains both integer and string in the format MM/1234. The loop should return the values with the least interger(1234) in ascending order in the html template.
Ideally you want to change the model to have two fields, one integer and one string, so you can code a queryset with ordering based on the integer one. You can then define a property of the model to return the self.MM+"/"+str( self.nn) composite value if you often need to use that. But if it's somebody else's database schema, this may not be an option.
In which case you'll have to convert your queryset into a list (which reads all the data rows at once) and then sort the list in Python rather than in the database. You can run out of memory or bring your server to its knees if the list contains millions of objects. count=qs.count() is a DB operation that won't.
qs = Foo.objects.filter( your_selection_criteria)
# you might want to count this before the next step, and chicken out if too many
# also this simple key function will crash if there's ever no "/" in that_field
all_obj = sorted( list( qs),
key = lambda obj: obj.that_field.split('/')[1] )
I'm working with a survey app, so I need to save all the answers a user gives in the database. The way I'm doing it is this:
for key, value in request.POST.items():
if key != 'csrfmiddlewaretoken': # I don't want to save the token info
item = Item.objects.get(pk=key) # I get the question(item) I want to save
if item == None:
return render(request, "survey/error.html")
Answer.objects.create(item= item, answer=value, user = request.user)
Taking into account that django by default closes connections to the database (i.e. does not use persistent connections). My question is:
In case the dictionary has for example the answer to 60 questions (so it will iterate 60 times), would it open and close the connections 60 times, or does it only do it once?
Is there a better way to save POST information manually? (without using django forms, since for various reasons I currently need to do it manually)
This definitely is not a good way to store Answers in bulk, since:
you each time fetch the Item object for every single question;
your code does not handle the case correctly where an item is missing: in that case it will raise an exception, and the Django middleware will (likely) render a 500 page; and
it will make several calls to create all these objects.
We can create objects in bulk to reduce the number of queries. Typically we will create all elements with a single query, although depending on the database and the amount of data, it might take a limited number of queries.
We furtermore do not need to fetch the related Item objects, at all, we can just set the item_id field instead, the "twin" of the item ForeignKey field, like:
from django.db import IntegrityError
try:
answers = [
Answer(item_id=key, answer=value, user=request.user)
for key, value in request.POST.items()
if key != 'csrfmiddlewaretoken'
]
Answer.objects.bulk_create(answers)
except IntegrityError:
return render(request, 'survey/error.html')
The bulk_create will thus insert all the objects in a small number of queries and thus significantly reduce the time of the request.
Note however that bulk_create has some limitations (listed on the documentation page). It might be useful to read those carefully and take them into account. Although I think in the given case, these are not relevant, it is always better to know the limitations of the tools you are using.
I have a page that displays multiple Formsets, each of which has a prefix. The formsets are created using formset_factory the default options, including extra=1. Rows can be added or deleted with JavaScript.
If the user is adding new data, one blank row shows up. Perfect.
If the user has added data but form validation failed, in which case the formset is populated with POST data using MyFormset(data, prefix='o1-formsetname') etc., only the data that they have entered shows up. Again, perfect. (the o1 etc. are dynamically generated, each o corresponds to an "option", and each "option" may have multiple formsets).
However if the user is editing existing data, in which case the view populates the formset using MyFormset(initial=somedata, prefix='o1-formsetname') where somedata is a list of dicts of data that came from a model in the database, an extra blank row is inserted after this data. I don't want a blank row to appear unless the user explicitly adds one using the JavaScript.
Is there any simple way to prevent the formset from showing an extra row if the initial data is set? The reason I'm using initial in the third example is that if I just passed the data in using MyFormset(somedata, prefix='o1-formsetname') I'd have to do an extra step of reformatting all the data into a POSTdata style dict including prefixes for each field, for example o1-formsetname-1-price: x etc., as well as calculating the management form data, which adds a whole load of complication.
One solution could be to intercept the formset before it's sent to the template and manually remove the row, but the extra_forms attribute doesn't seem to be writeable and setting extra to 0 doesn't make any difference. I could also have the JavaScript detect this case and remove the row. However I can't help but think I'm missing something obvious since the behaviour I want is what would seem to be sensible expected behaviour to me.
Thanks.
Use the max_num keyword argument to formset_factory:
MyFormset = formset_factory([...], extra=1, max_num=1)
For more details, check out limiting the maximum number of forms.
One hitch: presumably you want to be able to process more than one blank form. This isn't too hard; just make sure that you don't use the max_num keyword argument in the POST processing side.
I've come up with a solution that works with Django 1.1. I created a subclass of BaseFormSet that overrides the total_form_count method such that, if initial forms exist, the total does not include extra forms. Bit of a hack perhaps, and maybe there's a better solution that I couldn't find, but it works.
class SensibleFormset(BaseFormSet):
def total_form_count(self):
"""Returns the total number of forms in this FormSet."""
if self.data or self.files:
return self.management_form.cleaned_data[TOTAL_FORM_COUNT]
else:
if self.initial_form_count() > 0:
total_forms = self.initial_form_count()
else:
total_forms = self.initial_form_count() + self.extra
if total_forms > self.max_num > 0:
total_forms = self.max_num
return total_forms
All the answers I've seen to this so far have confused me.
I've made a form that gets built dynamically depending on a parameter passed in, and questions stored in the database. This all works fine (note: it's not a ModelForm, just a Form).
Now I'm trying to save the user's responses. How can I iterate over their submitted data so I can save it?
The MultipleChoiceFields are confusing me especially. I'm defining them as:
self.fields['question_' + str(question.id)] = forms.MultipleChoiceField(
label=mark_safe(required_tag +
question.label + "<br/>Choose any of the following answers"),
help_text=question.description,
required=question.required,
choices=choices,
widget=widgets.CheckboxSelectMultiple())
When I select several options, the actual posted data is something like:
question_1=5&question_1=6
Will django automatically realise that these are both options on the same form and let me access an iterable somewhere? I was going to do something like:
for field in self.cleaned_data:
print field # save the user's response somehow
but this doesn't work since this will only return question_1 once, even though there were two submitted values.
Answer: The for loop now works as expected if I loop through self.fields instead of self.cleaned_data:
for field in self.fields:
print self.cleaned_data[field]
... this doesn't work ...
Are you sure? Have you tested it? Normally the cleaned_data value for a MultipleChoiceField is a list of the values chosen on the form.
So yes, it only returns question_1 once, but that returned value itself contains multiple values.
I have developed a few Django apps, all pretty straight-forward in terms of how I am interacting with the models.
I am building one now that has several different views which, for lack of a better term, are "canned" search result pages. These pages all return results from the same model, but they are filtered on different columns. One page we might be filtering on type, another we might be filtering on type and size, and on yet another we may be filtering on size only, etc...
I have written a function in views.py which is used by each of these pages, it takes a kwargs and in that are the criteria upon which to search. The minimum is one filter but one of the views has up to 4.
I am simply seeing if the kwargs dict contains one of the filter types, if so I filter the result on that value (I just wrote this code now, I apologize if any errors, but you should get the point):
def get_search_object(**kwargs):
q = Entry.objects.all()
if kwargs.__contains__('the_key1'):
q = q.filter(column1=kwargs['the_key1'])
if kwargs.__contains__('the_key2'):
q = q.filter(column2=kwargs['the_key2'])
return q.distinct()
Now, according to the django docs (http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/queries/#id3), these is fine, in that the DB will not be hit until the set is evaluated, lately though I have heard that this is not the most efficient way to do it and one should probably use Q objects instead.
I guess I am looking for an answer from other developers out there. My way currently works fine, if my way is totally wrong from a resources POV, then I will change ASAP.
Thanks in advance
Resource-wise, you're fine, but there are a lot of ways it can be stylistically improved to avoid using the double-underscore methods and to make it more flexible and easier to maintain.
If the kwargs being used are the actual column names then you should be able to pretty easily simplify it since what you're kind of doing is deconstructing the kwargs and rebuilding it manually but for only specific keywords.
def get_search_object(**kwargs):
entries = Entry.objects.filter(**kwargs)
return entries.distinct()
The main difference there is that it doesn't enforce that the keys be actual columns and pretty badly needs some exception handling in there. If you want to restrict it to a specific set of fields, you can specify that list and then build up a dict with the valid entries.
def get_search_object(**kwargs):
valid_fields = ['the_key1', 'the_key2']
filter_dict = {}
for key in kwargs:
if key in valid_fields:
filter_dict[key] = kwargs[key]
entries = Entry.objects.filter(**filter_dict)
return entries.distinct()
If you want a fancier solution that just checks that it's a valid field on that model, you can (ab)use _meta:
def get_search_object(**kwargs):
valid_fields = [field.name for field in Entry._meta.fields]
filter_dict = {}
for key in kwargs:
if key in valid_fields:
filter_dict[key] = kwargs[key]
entries = Entry.objects.filter(**filter_dict)
return entries.distinct()
In this case, your usage is fine from an efficiency standpoint. You would only need to use Q objects if you needed to OR your filters instead of AND.