Maybe this question also is similar to something like "automatic execution of raw SQL code just before creating exact one special model in models.py with managed=False".
For example, I have 3 models in models.py (default User, UserTypes and relation between them):
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
class UserTypes(models.Model):
type = models.TextField(unique=True)
class Meta:
db_table = 'user_types'
class UsersHaveTypes(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
type = models.ForeignKey(UserTypes, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
class Meta:
db_table = 'users_have_types'
unique_together = (("user", "type"), )
I have few types of users one of which is clients. Now I want to create endpoints "/clients", which will work as a usual model (CRUD).
Right now, I just add this in models.py:
class Clients(models.Model):
first_name = models.TextField(blank=True, null=True)
last_name = models.TextField(blank=True, null=True)
# all another fields from User model, which duplicated in the database view
class Meta:
managed = False
db_table = 'clients'
and then I make this by hand in my database backend:
Create database view
Create a function to make Insert, Update
and Delete
Create a trigger to trigger this functions.
It's a bunch of code and there is nothing special, all worked fine.
This all is to make working CRUD on "/clients" endpoint, so, for example, on "Creation", it will create User and automatically add a correct row to users_have_types table, which marks this user as "client".
Is there some more elegant and automatical way to make this? I move my Django project, and I need to create view, function, and trigger in the database backend again, which takes a lot of time (all by hand for every "type of users") and is an ugly decision.
I'm surprised, that nobody asked this question before, cause it's a good style of code database to make some views, and hide real table behind them. I know that Django can't create database view by self, but there must be a way to describe custom SQL code, which is used to create a table in the database. Maybe something with managers, I don't know (I'm a newbie in Django). Of course, it will be specific only for one database backend, but it's fine.
Related
Hello Awesome People!
Such a question that I have made a lot of searches for it. I am done building a website two(2) months ago, but today The team decides to track every time an instance has been added to a Model in ManyToManyField() fields.
I was thinking using the through argument to point to the model that will act as an intermediary may work but not at all in my case (70%). Just Because I want to have a unique intermediary model that will record for all ManyToManyField()
class Group(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=128)
members = models.ManyToManyField(Person, through='Membership')
class Membership(models.Model):
person = models.ForeignKey(Person, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
group = models.ForeignKey(Group, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
date_joined = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True)
Ah! Something is required. I need to explicitly specify foreign keys to the models that are involved in the many-to-many relationship.
Django ContentType may anticipate for all my models, but it's not working, I wonder why? it also contains ForeignKey (the one required by an intermediary model).
Do I really need to edit all my ManyToManyField fields and create Model as much as ManytoManyField? is there a way to record date_joined without creating an intermediary model for each?
Are you perhaps looking for something like django admin's LogEntry model?
LogEntry contains the ContentType of the model instance that has changed, the id of the instance, the type of change and an abstract change message. With all of that you can retrace changes made to instances.
In django admin, the views take care of adding records to LogEntry via three methods log_change/addition/deletion: click.
I've extended the standard User with a Profile model using a one-to-one relationship:
class Profile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, primary_key=True, editable=False)
# Additional user information fields
This is in an app called account_custom. The issue is that in the admin site, I would like this model to show up along with User under "Authentication and Authorization".
I was able to make this show up in the right place in the admin by setting Meta.app_label:
class Profile(models.Model):
class Meta:
app_label = 'auth'
db_table = 'account_custom_profile'
I set Meta.db_table so this uses the existing database table, and everything seems to function properly.
The problem is that Django wants to generate migrations for this, one in account_custom to delete the table and one in auth to create it again. I'm guessing this would either fail or wipe out the data depending on the order the migrations are run, but the deeper problem is that it's trying to create a migration in auth which isn't part of my code base.
Is there a way around this, or is there some better way to control where a ModelAdmin shows up in the admin site?
Initially, I started my UserProfile like this:
from django.db import models
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
verified = models.BooleanField()
mobile = models.CharField(max_length=32)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.user.email
Which works nicely along with AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE = 'accounts.UserProfile' set in settings.py.
However, I have two different kinds of users in my website, Individuals and Corporate, each having their own unique attributes. For instance, I would want my Individual users to have a single user only, hence having user = models.OneToOneField(User), and for Corporate I would want them to have multiple users related to the same profile, so I would have user = models.ForeignKey(User) instead.
So I thought about segregating the model into two different models, IndivProfile and CorpProfile, both inheriting from UserProfile while moving the model-specific attributes into the relevant sub-models. Seems like a good idea to me and would probably work, however I would not be able to specify AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE this way since I'm having two user profiles that would be different for different users.
I also thought about doing it the other way around, having UserProfile inherit from multiple classes (models), something like this:
class UserProfile(IndivProfile, CorpProfile):
# some field
def __unicode__(self):
return self.user.email
This way I would set AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE = 'accounts.UserProfile' and solve its problem. But that doesn't look like it's going to work, since inheritance in python works from left to right and all the variables in IndivProfile will be dominant.
Sure I can always have one single model with IndivProfile and CorpProfile variables all mixed in together and then I would use the required ones where necessary. But that is just doesn't look clean to me, I would rather have them segregated and use the appropriate model in the appropriate place.
Any suggestions of a clean way of doing this?
You can do this in following way. Have a profile which will contains common fields which are necessary in both profiles. And you have already done this by creating class UserProfile.
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
# Some common fields here, which are shared among both corporate and individual profiles
class CorporateUser(models.Model):
profile = models.ForeignKey(UserProfile)
# Corporate fields here
class Meta:
db_table = 'corporate_user'
class IndividualUser(models.Model):
profile = models.ForeignKey(UserProfile)
# Individual user fields here
class Meta:
db_table = 'individual_user'
There is no rocket science involved here. Just have a keyword which will distinguish between corporate profile or individual profile. E.g. Consider that the user is signing up. Then have a field on form which will differentiate whether the user is signing up for corporate or not. And Use that keyword(request parameter) to save the user in respective model.
Then later on when ever you want to check that the profile of user is corporate or individual you can check it by writing a small function.
def is_corporate_profile(profile):
try:
profile.corporate_user
return True
except CorporateUser.DoesNotExist:
return False
# If there is no corporate profile is associated with main profile then it will raise `DoesNotExist` exception and it means its individual profile
# You can use this function as a template function also to use in template
{% if profile|is_corporate_profile %}
Hope this will lead you some where. Thanks!
I have done it this way.
PROFILE_TYPES = (
(u'INDV', 'Individual'),
(u'CORP', 'Corporate'),
)
# used just to define the relation between User and Profile
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
profile = models.ForeignKey('Profile')
type = models.CharField(choices=PROFILE_TYPES, max_length=16)
# common fields reside here
class Profile(models.Model):
verified = models.BooleanField(default=False)
I ended up using an intermediate table to reflect the relation between two abstract models, User which is already defined in Django, and my Profile model. In case of having attributes that are not common, I will create a new model and relate it to Profile.
Could be worth to try using a through field. The idea behind it is to use the UserProfile model as through model for the CorpProfile or IndivProfile models. That way it is being created as soon as a Corp or Indiv Profile is linked to a user:
from django.db import models
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
profile = models.ForeignKey(Profile, related_name='special_profile')
class Profile(models.Model):
common_property=something
class CorpProfile(Profile):
user=models.ForeignKey(User, through=UserProfile)
corp_property1=someproperty1
corp_property2=someproperty2
class IndivProfile(Profile):
user=models.ForeignKey(User, through=UserProfile, unique=true)
indiv_property1=something
indiv_property2=something
I think that way it should be possible to set AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE = 'accounts.UserProfile', and every time you create either a CorpProfile or a IndivProfile that is linked to a real user a unique UserProfile model is created. You can then access that with db queries or whatever you want.
I haven't tested this, so no guarantees. It may be a little bit hacky, but on the other side i find the idea quite appealing. :)
I would love to have more granular permission in my Django project, but can't decide what app to use.
What I have is something like:
class Item(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=64, unique=True)
description = models.CharField(max_length=128, default='')
logo = ImageField(upload_to=/tmp, blank=True, null=True)
Now with Django standard permissions I have the possibility to choose between add, change and delete, what I want to have is an extended change permission, to offer the ability to give group rights only to change the logo for example, but disallow that same group to modify the item description. I don't want or need a user to entry relation, but simply give the possibility to different groups to edit single fields of a model using the standard admin interface. I'm even not sure if I am talking about per-object permission?
Does anyone know what's best to use or how I would implement it myself? I could also imagine to have read-only users who can access/read everything but won't be able to modify, this isn't possible neither.
Thanks for any help.
The most flexible but way would be to:
write some custom permissions (i.e. can_modify_descr)
write yur own Forms or ModelForms
write Views to render your specified forms.
finally you'd have to override some django admin templates and render your Forms in templates that extend some standard django admin templates.
As far as I can see this is the only way to achieve what you want, but also requires a lot of work.
One simple way to achieve that is to create many ModelAdmin for the same model (one for each "group"). To do that you need to create one Proxy Models for each "group" like this:
models.py
class Item(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=64, unique=True)
description = models.CharField(max_length=128, default='')
logo = ImageField(upload_to=/tmp, blank=True, null=True)
class ItemGroup1(Item):
class Meta:
proxy = True
admin.py
class ItemAdmin(models.ModelAdmin):
...
class ItemGroup1Admin(models.ModelAdmin):
readonly_fields = ('logo', 'description')
And then you just need to set the permissions of group 1 to only have access to ItemGroup1, etc.
See this post for more info: Using Proxy Models to Customize the Django Admin
If you want to handle this sort of thing beyond your admin site, take a look at django-logical-rules, where you can write your rules in python and access them from views or within a template;
I am trying to implement an authentication system for 2 different sets of users in Django. A student(using his username & password), A developer (using his email & password). Currently I have a (common) UserProfile model which will be shared by Student, Developer. Here is my models code:
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
name = models.CharField(max_length=50, null=True, blank=True)
slug = models.SlugField(max_length=50, db_index=True, unique=True)#this will be used as his unique url identifier
objects = UserProfileManager()
class Meta:
abstract = True
class Student(UserProfile):
''' some student specific fields might go here '''
class Developer(UserProfile):
''' some developer specific fields might go here '''
And in settings.py I gave:
AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE = 'users.UserProfile'
I was getting authentication working with just UserProfile model. But as soon as I introduced Student, Developer the whole thing screwed up. I am getting
UserProfile has no attribute
'DoesNotExist'
(this is from the UserProfileManager exists method) and also
SiteProfileNotAvailable
error. (I am getting these errors even before I started writing email auth backend.). Am I missing anything ? What's the best path to follow to achieve what I wanted.
The problem might be the abstract definition of UserProfile. Things should work when you leave the 'abstract = True' away. But be aware of how this changes your table scheme.