Using Django I have a field which is of type JSONField. I am wanting to get a distinct count on a nested key/value in the json. With a normal field you can just do soemthing like the following
model.objects.values('field_name')\
.annotate(total=Count('field_name')).order_by('-total')
This does not work for a JSONField.
Example Model
class Pet(models.Model):
data = JSONField()
Example of data
{
'name':'sparky',
'animal':'dog',
'diet':{
'breakfast':'biscuits',
'dinner':'meat',
}
}
Trying
Pet.objects.values('data__diet__dinner')\
.annotate(total=Count('data__diet__dinner')).order_by('-total')
Exception of
TypeError: unhashable type: 'list'
What is the correct way to execute this?
You can use jsonb_extract_path_text via a Func object as an alternative to the field transform:
Pet.annotate(dinner=Func(
F('data'), Value('diet'), Value('dinner'),
function='jsonb_extract_path_text')) \
.values('dinner') \
.annotate(total=Count('dinner'))
The reason why the field transform data__diet__dinner fails is an error within Django when you go deeper than just one level into the json structure and use GROUP BY in the SQL. The first level (name, animal, diet) should work fine.
The reason seems to be that for nested transforms, Django changes the SQL syntax used, switching from a single value to a list to specify the path into the json structure.
This is the syntax used for non-nested json transforms (= first level):
"appname_pet"."data" -> 'diet'
And this is the syntax used for nested transforms (deeper than first level):
"appname_pet"."data" #> ARRAY['diet', 'dinner']
While constructing the query, Django chokes on that list while working out the required GROUP BY clauses. This does not seem to be an inevitable restriction; the support for transforms is quite new, and this is possibly one of the kinks that haven't been worked out yet. So if you open a Django ticket, this might just work a few versions down the line.
Related
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.
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 understand that Django want to generate forms automatically so you don't have to do so in your template, and I do understand that many people find it cool.
But I have specific requirements and I have to write my forms on my own. I just need something to parse the data, be it a form submitted using a user interface, or an API request, or whatever.
I tried to use ModelForm, but it doesn't seem to work as I want it to work.
I'd like to have something with the following behavior:
possibility to specify the model of the object I am going to create/update
possibility to specify an object in case of an update
possibility to provide new data in a dictionary
if I am creating a new object, missing fields in my data should be replaced by their default values as specified in my model definition
if I am updating an existing object, missing fields in my data should be replaced by the current values of the object I am updating. Another way of saying is, do not update values that are missing in my data dictionary.
data validation should be performed before calling save(), and it should throw a ValidationError with the list of erroneous fields and errors.
Currently, I prefer to do everything manually :
o = myapp.models.MyModel() # or o = myapp.Models.MyModel.objects.get(pk = data['pk'])
o.field1 = data['field1']
o.field2 = data['field2']
…
o.full_clean()
o.save()
It would be nice to have a shortcut :
o = SuperCoolForm(myapp.models.MyModel, data)
o.save()
Do you know if Django does provide a solution for this or am I asking too much?
Thank you!
this_category = Category.objects.get(name=cat_name)
gives error: get() takes exactly 2 non-keyword arguments (1 given)
I am using the appengine helper, so maybe that is causing problems. Category is my model. Category.objects.all() works fine. Filter is also similarily not working.
Thanks,
Do you have any functions named name or cat_name? If so, try changing them or the variable names you are using and trying again.
The helper maps the Django model manager (Category.objects in this case) back to the class instance of the model via the appengine_django.models.ModelManager. Through the inheritance chain you eventually come to appengine.ext.db.Model.get(cls, keys, **kwargs) so that is why you are seeing this error. The helper does not support the same interface for get that Django does. If you do not want to get by primary key, you must use a filter
To do your query, you need to use the GAE filter function like this:
this_category = Category.objects.all().filter('name =', cat_name).get()
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)