Note: New to django. Doing my with project with it. So I certainly lack many understand and the answer could be trivial.
I have a ManyToMany relationship. I have trouble coming up with an analogy but on the "main" side we have a container which contains one or more items. In my case the items aren't "real" things but more like a "template" and templates are unique. This is the background.
The business rules are that changes only happen and are initiated on the container side. So the form shows a container an it's items. A user can change one of the items.
If an item in a container changes, the item instance (row in database) must not change, as said, it's a template used in many other containers. So the logic must be that if a user changes an item, a lookup is done if it already exists and if yes, instead of updating the current item, reuse the existing one. If it doesn't exist, create a new one and use that. But under no circumstance should the existing one be changed.
How and where (at which level) can I achieve this? I would really like to keep this out of the model itself (and hence not override the models save method) but do it in some type of service class.
Not really an answer but it seems with how django works doing this in the models save() method is the correct way to go.
Related
I have a Django app with two models linked by a many-to-many relationship.
Service, problem_type.
A service provides assistance for a number of problem types. I use the problem_type table to later facilitate lookups of all services that help for a specific problem type.
I update my model from an external API. I take in a list of "problem_types" for each service, eg:
['housing', 'financial aid' ... etc]
Over time, a service might get new problem_types or remove old ones. Is there a best practice for managing this?
Adding new problem_types relationships or new problem_types is ok, I just loop through the incoming list of problem types and add any new ones to the problem_type relationship/table, but what is the best way to remove now redundant ones?
Is it best to:
Loop through associated problem types and delete each not in the new incoming list?
Get all associated problem types and delete every relationship before re-adding the incoming list
Is there some built-in method for doing this that I have not been able to find?
In an ideal world love to be able to pass the incoming list of new problem_types with the current set of related problem_types to a method and add/remove as needed. Does something like this exist or do I have to implement it?
I have a class used for permanent storage of some item that are organized in a table-like manner. This class is totally unrelated to Qt and comes from a different library. Lets call this class DataContainer for the rest of this question. It provides std-c++ compatible iterators to access and manipulate the content.
I need to display and modify that data through a Qt GUI. My idea was to create a class DataContainerQtAdaptor that inherits from QAbstractTableModel and stores a pointer to the DataContainer object. The DataContainerQtAdaptor serves as an adaptor to the DataContainer object and all manipulation from inside of my Qt app is done through this adaptor. Then I use a QTableView widget to display the information.
Unfortunately the DataContainer might be changed by threads/processes. (For example think of DataContainer as some C++ class that encapsulates a database connection and that database might be changed by someone else.)
Questions:
1) Assume I have a function that is called everytime the internal structur of the DataContainer object has been changed. What is the correct function of the QAbstractTableModel that must be called to inform the model of the underlying change? I need something like "Dear Model, your persistent storage backend changed. Please, update yourself and emit a signal to every attached view in order to reflect this change".
2) Lets say 1) is solved. What is the best way to avoid a "double" GUI update in case the change was triggered through the GUI? E.g: User clicks on a cell in the table widget -> table widget calls setData of the model -> model pushes change to backend -> backend triggers its own "onUpdate" function -> model re-reads complete backend (although it already knows the change) -> GUI is updated a second time
3) The user should be able to insert new rows/columns through the GUI and put data into it. But the position is detemined by this data, because the backend keeps the data sorted. Hence, I have the following problem: The user decides to create a new row at the end and the new data is pushed to the backend. When the backend/model is re-read this data is normally not at the last position, but has been inserted somewhere in the middle and all other data has been moved forward. Ho do I keep all the properties of the the table view widget like "selection of a cell" in sync?
I believe, there must be some simple standard solution to all these question, because it is the same way as QFileSystemModel works. The user selects a file and some other process creates a new file. The new file is displayed in the view and all subsequent rows move forward. The selection moves forward, too.
Matthias
Model Semantics
First of all, you must ensure that the QAbstractItemModel cannot be in an inconsistent state. This means that there are some signals that must be fired on the model before certain changes to the underlying data are done.
There is a fundamental difference between changes to structure and changes to data. Structure changes are the rows/columns of the model being added or removed. Data changes affect the value of existing data items only.
Structural changes require calling beginXxx and endXxx around the modification. You cannot modify any structure before calling beginXxx. When you're done changing the structure, call endXxx. Xxx is one of: InsertColumns, MoveColumns, RemoveColumns, InsertRows, MoveRows, RemoveRows, ResetModel.
If the changes affect many discontiguous rows/columns, it's cheaper to indicate a model reset - but be wary that selections on the views might not survive it.
Data changes that keep the structure intact merely require that dataChanged is sent after the underlying data was modified. This means that there is a window of time when a call to data might return a new value before dataChanged is received by the object that queries the model.
This also implies that non-constant models are almost useless from non-QObject classes, unless of course you implement bridge functionality using observer or similar patterns.
Breaking Update Loops
The Qt-idiomatic way of dealing with update loops on the model is by leveraging the item roles. It's entirely up to you how your model interprets the roles. A simple and useful behavior implemented by QStringListModel is simply to forward the role from the setData call to dataChanged, otherwise ignoring the role.
The stock view widgets react only to dataChanged with the DisplayRole. Yet, when they edit the data, they call setData with the EditRole. This breaks the loop. The approach is applicable both to view widgets and to Qt Quick view items.
Insertion of Data into Sorted Models
As long as the model properly emits the change signals when the sorting is done, you'll be fine.
The sequence of operations is:
The view adds a row and calls model's insertRow method. The model can either add this empty row to the underlying container or not. The key is that the empty row index must be kept for now.
The editing starts on an item in the row. The view state changes to Editing.
Editing is done on the item. The view exits the editing state, and sets the data on the model.
The model determines the final position of the item, based on its contents.
The model invokes beginMoveRows.
The model changes the container by inserting the item at the correct location.
The model invokes endMoveRows.
At this point, everything is as you expect it to be. The views can automatically follow the moved item if it was focused prior to being moved. The edited items are focused by default, so that works fine.
Required Container Functionality
Your DataContainer doesn't have enough functionality to make it work unless all access to it were to be done through the model. If you want to access the container directly, either make the container explicitly inherit QAbstractXxxxModel, or you'll have to add a notification system to the container. The former is an easier option.
Your core question reduces to: can I have model functionality without implementing some variant of the model notification API. The obvious answer is: no, sorry, you can't - by definition. Either the functionality is there, or it isn't. You can implement the notification API using an observer pattern if you don't want the container to be a QObject - then you'll need your model shim class. There's really no way around it.
The QFileSystemModel gets notified by the filesystem about individual directory entries that have changed. Your container has to do the same - and this amounts to providing a dataChanged signal, in some shape or form. If the model has items that get moved around or added/removed - its structure changes - it has to emit the xxxAboutToBeYyy and xxxYyy signals, by calling the relevant beginZzz and endZzz methods.
Indices
The most important underdocumented aspect of QModelIndex is: its instances are only valid for as long as the model's structure hasn't changed. If your model is passed an index that was generated prior to a structure change, you're free to behave in an undefined way (crash, launch a nuclear strike, whatever).
The whole reason for the existence of QModelIndex::internalPointer() is your use case of having an underlying, complex-indexed data container. Your implementation of the model's createIndex method must generate index instances that store references to the DataContainer's indices in some form. If those indices fit in a pointer, you don't need to allocate the data on the heap. If you need to allocate the container index storage on the heap, you must retain a pointer to this data and delete it any time the container's structure changes. You're free to do it, since nobody is supposed to use the index instance after a structure change.
From the documentation of method bool QAbstractItemModel::insertRows(int row, int count, const QModelIndex & parent = QModelIndex()):
If you implement your own model, you can reimplement this function if
you want to support insertions. Alternatively, you can provide your
own API for altering the data. In either case, you will need to call
beginInsertRows() and endInsertRows() to notify other components that
the model has changed.
The same goes for removeRows() and moveRows() (they have their own begin*() and end*() methods). For modifying data of existing item there's a dataChanged() signal.
Here's how it goes (answer for question 1):
Implement your own methods for inserting/deleting/modifying data, where each of those methods must look like this:
beginInsertRows(parentIndex, beginRow, endRow);
// code that modifies underlying data
endInsertRows();
beginRow and endRow must be provided to inform which where the rows will be inserted and how many of them (endRow-beginRow).
For beginDeleteRows() and beginMoveRows() it's the same.
When you have a method which simply modified data in existing item, then this method must emit signal at the end: dataChanged().
If you do a lot of changes in the data, it sometimes is simpler to just call beginResetModel() and endResetModel() in the method performing this huge modification. It will cause all views to refresh all data in it.
Answer for question 2:
This is up to the View class implementation if it will "double-update". When you enter data in the View, data is sent to the model through one of the edition methods in model (insertRows(), setData(), etc). Default implementation of those methods always use begin*() and end*() methods and so the proper notification signals are emitted by the model. All Views listen to those signals, including the one you used for entering the data, therefore the "double-update" will be performed.
The only way to define this behaviour is to inherit the View and reimplement its protected slots (like dataChanged() and similar) to avoid updating if the value was detected to be provided by this view.
I'm not sure if Qt views do that already or not. Answer to this requires someone more educated in Qt internals, or looking into Qt source code (which I don't have at the moment). If somebody knows this, please comment and I will update the answer.
I think it's not that bad to reload the data from model - it guarantees that what you see is indeed the value from the model. You avoid possible problems with the Editor and the View bugs.
Answer for question 3:
When you reload whole model, then there is no simple way to keep track of selection. In that case you need to ask view->selectionModel() about current selection and try to restore it after reload.
However if you do partial refreshing (using methods I described in answer 1), then the View will track the selection for you. Nothing to worry about.
Final comments:
If you want to edit data from outside of model class, you can do it. Just expose begin*() and end*() methods as public API, so other code that edits data can notify model and views about changes.
While it can be done, it's not a good practice. It may lead to bugs, because it's easy to forget about calling notification everywhere you modify the data. If you have to call model API to notify about changes, why not already move all editing code insise the model and expose editing API?
I need a django form that submits multiple separate requests, and can't find an example of how to do this without a lot of customization. I.e., suppose there is a form that is used by a car repair shop. The form will list all the possible repairs that the shop is capable of doing, and the user will select which repairs they want to have done (i.e., using checkboes.)
Each repair can be assigned to a different mechanic. Each repair can also be cancelled or declared to be done, independent of the other repairs. That seems to require that each repair become a separate instance in a database.
Additionally, each repair job can be only performed by certain mechanic. So I need the ability to associate each repair job to it's own unique list of mechanics to choose from.
Has anyone seen an example of a django form, that does something like this? Thanks.
This is what formsets (and model formsets) are for.
It's been a while since the question is asked and I had the same problem:
I solved it by instance = form.save(commit=False), then setting the different attributes, then instances.save(force_insert=True), then deleting the form.instance.id....
HOWEVER this means that all fields that are eventually overwritten in the save method stay after the frist call to save()... This bit me hard!
How did you end up doing it?
I need to provide my users a list of choices from a model which is stored in a separate legacy database. Foreign keys aren't supported in django multi-db setups. The ideal choice would be to use a foreign key, but since thats not possible I need to some up with something else.
So instead I created an IntegerField on the other database and tried using choices to get a list of available options.
class OtherDBTable(models.Model):
client = models.IntegerField(max_length=20, choices=Client.objects.values_list('id','name'))
the problem I'm having is that the choices seem to get populated once but never refreshed. How do I ensure that whenever the client list changes that those newest options area available to pick.
What I was really looking for was a way that I could simulate the behavior of a Foreign key field, at least as far as matching up ID's go.
There wasn't a clear way to do this, since it doesn't seem like you can actually specify an additional field when you instantiate a model (you can with forms, easily)
In any case to deal with the problem, since the database is MySQL based, I ended up creating views from the tables I needed in the other database.
To build on #Yuji's answer - if you do self.fields['field'].choices = whatever in the model's __init__, whatever can be any iterable.
This means you can inherit from iterable, and have that object interface to your legacy database, or you can use a generator function (in case you are unfamiliar, look up the yield keyword).
Citing a Django's manual:
Finally, note that choices can be any iterable object -- not necessarily a list or tuple. This lets you construct choices dynamically. But if you find yourself hacking choices to be dynamic, you're probably better off using a proper database table with a ForeignKey. choices is meant for static data that doesn't change much, if ever.
Why dont you want just export data from the legacy database and to import it into the new one? This could be done periodically, if the legacy database still in use.
Instead of deleting records in my Django application, I want to just mark them as "deleted" and have them hidden from my active queries. My main reason to do this is to give the user an undelete option in case they accidentally delete a record (these records may also be needed for certain backend audit tracking.)
There are a lot of foreign key relationships, so when I mark a record as deleted I'd have to "Cascade" this delete flag to those records as well. What tools, existing projects, or methods should I use to do this?
Warning: this is an old answer and it seems that the documentation is recommending not to do that now: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/managers/#don-t-filter-away-any-results-in-this-type-of-manager-subclass
Django offers out of the box the exact mechanism you are looking for.
You can change the manager that is used for access through related objects. If you new custom manager filters the object on a boolean field, the object flagged inactive won't show up in your requests.
See here for more details :
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/managers/#using-managers-for-related-object-access
Nice question, I've been wondering how to efficiently do this myself.
I am not sure if this will do the trick, but django-reversion seems to do what you want, although you probably want to examine to see how it achieves this goal, as there are some inefficient ways to do it.
Another thought would be to have the dreaded boolean flag on your Models and then creating a custom manager that automatically adds the filter in, although this wouldn't work for searches across different Models. Yet another solution suggested here is to have duplicate models of everything, which seems like overkill, but may work for you. The comments there also discuss different options.
I will add that for the most part I don't consider any of these solutions worth the hassle; I usually just suck it up and filter my searches on the boolean flag. It avoids many issues that can come up if you try to get too clever. It is a pain and not very DRY, of course. A reasonable solution would be a mixture of the Custom manager while being aware of its limitations if you try searching a related model through it.
I think using a boolean 'is_active' flag is fine - you don't need to cascade the flag to related entries at the db level, you just need to keep referring to the status of the parent. This is what happens with contrib.auth's User model, remember - marking a user as not is_active doesn't prompt django to go through related models and magically try to deactivate records, rather you just keep checking the is_active attribute of the user corresponding to the related item.
For instance if each user has many bookmarks, and you don't want an inactive user's bookmarks to be visible, just ensure that bookmark.user.is_active is true. There's unlikely to be a need for an is_active flag on the bookmark itself.
Here's a quick blog tutorial from Greg Allard from a couple of years ago, but I implemented it using Django 1.3 and it was great. I added methods to my objects named soft_delete, undelete, and hard_delete, which set self.deleted=True, self.deleted=False, and returned self.delete(), respectively.
A Django Model Manager for Soft Deleting Records and How to Customize the Django Admin
There are several packages which provide this functionality: https://www.djangopackages.com/grids/g/deletion/
I'm developing one https://github.com/meteozond/django-permanent/
It replaces default Manager and QuerySet delete methods to bring in logical deletion.
It completely shadows default Django delete methods with one exception - marks models which are inherited from PermanentModel instead of deletion, even if their deletion caused by relation.