This is a duplicate question to this Django dynamic models.FileField Storage, but the question is not answered with correct solution yet.
I also have the similar use case. I need to dynamically change the storage on the basis of the model field.
I have tried using the callable for storage https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.1/topics/files/#using-a-callable. But I think this callable gets called before the model field values are initialized.
Edit:
Code Sample I have:
class MediaDocument(models.Model):
file_name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
object_storage_name = models.CharField(max_length=255, null=True)
file = models.FileField(upload_to=mediadocument_directory_path, storage=select_storage(object_storage_name))
I want to do something like this:
def select_storage(object_storage_name):
if object_storage_name == 'alibaba OSS':
return AlibabaStorage
else:
return MediaStorage
Please suggest how can I do this.
Luckily, got this article on internet https://medium.com/#hiteshgarg14/how-to-dynamically-select-storage-in-django-filefield-bc2e8f5883fd
It solves the similar use case.
Related
Hello folks Im new to Django(I have just the finished the tutorial) but I think i understand the basic concepts of it .Im writing here because Im trying to do something "difficult" for my current experience with django and searching the internet didnt give me a solution .What im trying to do is to create a dynamic model based on the number of entries of another model .To be more exact lets say i got the following model :
class criteria(models.Model):
criteria_text = models.CharField(max_length=200)
monotonicity = models.CharField(max_length=1,choices=(('+','ASCEDING'),('-','DESCENDING')),default='+',verbose_name='Monotonicity')
worst = models.IntegerField(default=0)
best = models.IntegerField(default=0)
What i want to do is create all the criteria models instances i want through the django admin panel and then query for all the creteria_text instances in the database and make a model with an attribute for every criteria_text instance.
So lets say I add the following criteria to the database(these are criteria_text attributes of criteria objects: Color,Weight,Price .
I want to end up with a model like this :
class Alternative(models.Model):
Color = models.IntegerField(default=0)
Weight = models.IntegerField(default=0)
Price = models.IntegerField(default=0)
The thing is that in my application this one has to happen a lot of times so i cannot make model each time someone adds an Alternative based on different criteria .
After searching i found that i can define dynamic models using the following format :
attrs = {
'name': models.CharField(max_length=32),
'__module__': 'myapp.models'
}
Animal = type("Animal", (models.Model,), attrs)
So the question is how can I define "attrs" based on a query that gets all the criteria in the database ?Can i define a relationship of this dynamic model with another model ? Also the models already created should be updated if a user adds more criteria .
Is something like this possible ?
If so please show me the path .
I don't think defining dynamic models is a good solution here (or anywhere, really). Rather, you need a relationship that can have as many items as there are criteria instances.
It might be something like this:
class Alternative(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(...)
choices = models.ManyToManyField("Criteria", through="AlternativeChoice")
class AlternativeChoice(models.Model):
alternative = models.ForeignKey('Alternative')
criteria = models.ForeignKey('Criteria')
value = models.IntegerField(default=0)
The real logic will belong in the form, where you will need to create options for each criteria entry, and validate the AlternativeChoice dependent on the related criteria.
I have a database containing a list of ingredients. I'd like to avoid duplicate entries in this table. I don't want to use the unique keyword for 2 reasons :
My uniqueness constraints are a bit more sophisticated than a mere =
I don't want to raise an exception when a pre-existing ingredient model is created, instead I just want to return that model, so that I can write Ingredient(ingredient_name='tomato') and just go on with my day rather than encapsulating all of that in a try clause. This will allow me to easily add ingredients to my recipe table on the fly.
One solution is simply to have a wrapper function like create_ingredient, but I don't find that to be particularly elegant and more specifically it's not robust to some other developer down the line simply forgetting to use the wrapper. So instead, I'm playing around with the pre_init and post_init signals.
Here's what I have so far :
class Ingredient(models.Model):
ingredient_name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
recipes = models.ManyToManyField(Recipe,related_name='ingredients')
def __str__(self):
return self.ingredient_name
class Name(models.Model):
main_name = models.CharField(max_length=200, default=None)
equivalent_name = models.CharField(max_length=200, primary_key=True, default=None)
def _add_ingredient(sender, args, **kwargs):
if 'ingredient_name' not in kwargs['kwargs'] :
return
kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name'] = kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name'].lower()
# check if equivalent name exists, make this one the main one otherwise
try:
kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name'] = Name.objects.filter(
equivalent_name=kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name']
)[0].main_name
except IndexError:
name = Name(main_name=kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name'],
equivalent_name=kwargs['kwargs']['ingredient_name'])
name.save()
pre_init.connect(_add_ingredient, Ingredient)
So far so good. This actually works and will replace ingredient_name when needed before the model is initialized. Now what I'd like is to check if the ingredient in question already exists and have the initializer return it if it does. I think I need to play around with post_init to do this but I don't know how to modify the particular instance that's being created. Here's what I mean by that :
def _finalize_ingredient(sender, instance, **kwargs):
try:
# doesn't work because of python's "pass arguments in python's super unique way of doing things" thing
instance = Ingredient.objects.filter(ingredient_name=instance.ingredient_name)[0]
except IndexError:
pass
post_init.connect(_finalize_ingredient, Ingredient)
As I've commented, I don't expect this to work because instance = ... doesn't actually modify instance, it just reassigns the variable name (incidentally if you try to run this all sorts of terrible things happen which I don't care to understand because I know this is flat out wrong). So how do I actually do this ? I really hope wrapper functions aren't the cleanest option here. I'm a big fan of OOP and gosh darn it I want an OOP solution to this (which, as I've said, I think in the long run would be much more robust and safer than wrappers).
I realize of course that I can add an add_ingredient method to Recipe which will do all of this for me, but I really like the idea of containing all of this in my Ingredient class as it will guarantee the proper database behavior under any circumstance. I'm also curious as to know if/how the post_init method can be used to completely override the created object for a given circumstance.
By the way, some of you may be wondering why I don't have a ForeignKey entry in my Name class that would connect the Name table to the Ingredient table. After all, isn't this what my check is essentially accomplishing in my _add_ingredient method ? One of the reasons is that if I do this then I end up with the same problem I'm trying to solve here : If I want to create an ingredient on the fly to add it to my recipe, I could simply create a Name object when creating an Ingredient object, but that would raise an exception if it corresponds to a main_name that is already in use (rather than simply returning the object I need).
I believe you are looking for get_or_create(), which is already a built-in in Django.
You mention:
One solution is simply to have a wrapper function like create_ingredient, but I don't find that to be particularly elegant and more specifically it's not robust to some other developer down the line simply forgetting to use the wrapper.
Well, look at it the other way around. What if you actually need to create a "duplicate" ingredient? Then it is nice to have the possibility.
I've come up with something that is as elegant and robust as I think it's possible to be given what I'm after. I've still had to define an add_ingredient method, but I still have the robustness that I need. I've made it so that it can be generalized to any class with a primary key, and the Name table will contain the info that will define the name uniqueness of any table :
class Name(models.Model):
main_name = models.CharField(max_length=200, default=None)
equivalent_name = models.CharField(max_length=200, primary_key=True, default=None)
def _pre_init_unique_fetcher(sender, args, **kwargs):
pk_name = sender._meta.pk.name
if pk_name not in kwargs['kwargs'] :
return
kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name] = kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name].lower()
# check if equivalent name exists, make this one the main one otherwise
try:
kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name] = Name.objects.filter(
equivalent_name=kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name]
)[0].main_name
except IndexError:
name = Name(main_name=kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name],
equivalent_name=kwargs['kwargs'][pk_name])
name.save()
sender._input_dict = kwargs['kwargs']
def _post_init_unique_fetcher(sender, instance, **kwargs):
pk_name = sender._meta.pk.name
pk_instance = instance.__dict__[pk_name]
filter_dict = {}
filter_dict[pk_name] = pk_instance
try:
post_init.disconnect(_post_init_unique_fetcher,sender)
instance.__dict__ = sender.objects.filter(**filter_dict)[0].__dict__
post_init.connect(_post_init_unique_fetcher, sender)
for key in sender._input_dict:
instance.__dict__[key] = sender._input_dict[key]
del sender._input_dict
except IndexError:
post_init.connect(_post_init_unique_fetcher, sender)
except:
post_init.connect(_post_init_unique_fetcher, sender)
raise
unique_fetch_models = [Ingredient, Recipe, WeekPlan]
for unique_fetch_model in unique_fetch_models :
pre_init.connect(_pre_init_unique_fetcher, unique_fetch_model)
post_init.connect(_post_init_unique_fetcher, unique_fetch_model)
Now what this will do is load up any new model with the pre-existing data of the previous model (rather than the default values) if one with the same name exists. The reason I still need an add_ingredient method in my Recipe class is because I can't call Ingredient.objects.create() for a pre-existing ingredient without raising an exception despite the fact that I can create the model and immediately save it. This has to do with how Django handles the primary_key designation : if you create the model then save it, it assumes you're just updating the entry if it already exists with that key, and yet if you create it, it tries to add another entry and that conflicts with the primary_key designation. So now I can do things like recipe.add_ingredient(Ingredient(ingredient_name='tomato', vegetarian=True)).
I'm looping through a list of objects and saving. I need the newly generated id or pointer id right after the save but it is None.
Here is my code:
for category in category_list:
saved_category = category.save()
print saved_category.parentCategory_ptr_id
print saved_category.id
This saves my object after the routine is run, but again, does not give me the id at this line.
here is my model:
class ParentCategory(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
class Category(ParentCategory):
description = models.CharField(max_length=255)
category list was created like so:
category_list = []
for row in value_list:
category = Category(description=row.description)
category_list.append(category)
return category_list
What am I doing wrong?
The problem is with:
saved_category = category.save()
It needs to be:
category = category.save()
The original saved object in the list is the object that contains the id.
Their is no need of reassign.
category.save()
When you call save() method the object is saved into database and assign id (primary key) to the object.
Saving Objects Django Official
Other same question asked on Stackoverflow and correct answer by Daniel Roseman
I don't think the object will get saved. Seems that the object you are creating lacks sufficient data to satisfy db constraints. You might have used try-catch somewhere, you would have seen the error. Try adding blank=True, null=True to name in ParentCategory or provide a name while creating the object. I hope this works...
I'm trying to figure out how to design my model. I've been going over the documentation, and it ultimately seems like I should be using the "through" attribute, but I just can't figure out how to get it to work how I want.
If someone could take a look and point out what I'm missing, that would be really helpful. I have pasted my model below.
This is what I am trying to do:
1) Have a list of server types
2) Each server type will need to have different parts available to that specific server type
3) The asset has a FK to the servermodel, which has a M2M to the parts specific to that server type.
My question is, how can each "Asset" store meta data for each "Part" specific to that "Asset"? For example, each "Asset" should have it's own last_used data for the part that's assigned to it.
Thanks! :)
class Part(models.Model):
part_description = models.CharField(max_length=30,unique=1)
last_used = models.CharField(max_length=30)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.part_description
class ServerModel(models.Model):
server_model = models.CharField(max_length=30,unique=1)
parts = models.ManyToManyField(Part)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.server_model
class Asset(models.Model):
server_model = models.ForeignKey(ServerModel)
serial_number = models.CharField(max_length=10,unique=1)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.server_model.server_model
EDIT:
Thank you for the help!
I may have not explained myself clearly, though. It's probably my confusing model names.
Example:
ServerModel stores the type of server being used, say "Dell Server 2000".
The "Dell Server 2000" should be assigned specific parts:
"RAM"
"HARD DISK"
"CDROM"
Then, I should be able to create 10x Assets with a FK to the ServerModel. Now, each of these assets should be able to mark when the "RAM" part was last used for this specific asset.
I'm not sure I exactly understand what you want to do, but basically you can solve that with a "through" model, as you expected:
import datetime
class Part(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=30,unique=1)
class ServerModel(models.Model):
server_model = models.CharField(max_length=30,unique=1)
parts = models.ManyToManyField(Part,through='Asset')
class Asset(models.Model):
server_model = models.ForeignKey(ServerModel)
part = models.ForeignKey(Part)
serial_number = models.CharField(max_length=10,unique=1)
used = models.DateTimeField(default=datetime.datetime.now())
First thing to notice is the relation of the parts to the servermodel using the "through"-model: that way for each Part instance assigned to the "parts"-property of a ServerModel instance a new Asset instance is created (Phew - hope that doesn't sound too complicated). At the time of creation the "used"-property of the Asset instance is set to the current date and time (thats what default=datetime.datetime.now() does).
If you do that, you can then just query the database for the last asset containing your part. That queryset can then be sorted by the "used" property of the Asset model, which is the date when the Asset instance has been created.
ServerModel.objects.filter(parts__name='ThePartYouAreLookingFor').order_by('asset__used')
I'm not absolutely sure if the queryset is correct, so if someone finds huge nonsense in it, feel free to edit ;)
edit:
The models above do not exactly that. But you do not even need a through model for what you want:
class ServerModel(models.Model):
server_model = models.CharField(max_length=30,unique=1)
parts = models.ManyToManyField(Part)
class Asset(models.Model):
server_model = models.ForeignKey(ServerModel)
parts = models.ForeignKey(Part)
serial_number = models.CharField(max_length=10,unique=1)
used = models.DateTimeField(default=datetime.datetime.now())
Basically you can just add assets and then query all assets that have a RAM in parts.
Asset.objects.filter(parts__contains='RAM').order_by('used')
Get the date of the first (or last) result of that queryset and you have the date of the last usage of your 'RAM'-part.
Below is a stripped down model and associated method. I am looking for a simple way upon executing a query to get all of the needed information in a single answer without having to re-query everything. The challenge here is the value is dependent upon the signedness of value_id.
class Property(models.Model):
property_definition = models.ForeignKey(PropertyDefinition)
owner = models.IntegerField()
value_id = models.IntegerField()
def get_value(self):
if self.value_id < 0: return PropertyLong.objects.get(id=-self.value_id)
else: return PropertyShort.objects.get(id=self.value_id)
Right now to get the "value" I need to do this:
object = Property.objects.get(property_definition__name="foo")
print object.get_value()
Can someone provide a cleaner way to solve this or is it "good" enough? Ideally I would like to simply just do this.
object = Property.objects.get(property_definition__name="foo")
object.value
Thanks
Given this is a bad design. You can use the builtin property decorator for your method to make it act as a property.
class Property(models.Model):
property_definition = models.ForeignKey(PropertyDefinition)
owner = models.IntegerField()
value_id = models.IntegerField()
#property
def value(self):
if self.value_id < 0: return PropertyLong.objects.get(id=-self.value_id)
else: return PropertyShort.objects.get(id=self.value_id)
This would enable you to do what you'd ideally like to do: Property.objects.get(pk=1).value
But I would go as far as to call this "cleaner". ;-)
You could go further and write your own custom model field by extending django.models.Field to hide the nastiness in your schema behind an API. This would at least give you the API you want now, so you can migrate the nastiness out later.
That or the Generic Keys mentioned by others. Choose your poison...
this is a bad design. as Daniel Roseman said, take a look at generic foreign keys if you must reference two different models from the same field.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/1.3/ref/contrib/contenttypes/#generic-relations
Model inheritance could be used since value is not a Field instance.