On Django Documentation, I read this : https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/2.0/topics/signals/#preventing-duplicate-signals
In some circumstances, the code connecting receivers to signals may
run multiple times. This can cause your receiver function to be
registered more than once, and thus called multiple times for a single
signal event.
Then, If I use signal as,
class CustomauthConfig(AppConfig):
name = 'myapp'
def ready(self):
import myapp.signals
And
#receiver(post_save, sender=TestModel)
def update_log(sender, instance, **kwargs):
TestModelLog.objects.create(description=instance.description, datetime=instance.updated)
Question:
Is it right that I don't need dispatch_uid?
Or if I have to use dispatch_uid, Would you give me a sample for using dispatch_uid?
My purpose is to prevent duplicates
Since you are using the signal to create a new Log (although your function is named update_log) you are probably better off using update_or_create() method:
#receiver(post_save, sender=TestModel)
def update_log(sender, instance, **kwargs):
TestModelLog.objects.update_or_create(
description=instance.description, datetime=instance.updated
)
Related
I'm using Channels v2.
I want to integrate long-polling into my project.
The only consumer I see in the documentation for http long polling is the AsyncHttpConsumer.
The code I need to run in my handle function is not asynchronous. It connects to another device on the network using a library that is not asynchronous. From what I understand, this will cause the event loop to block, which is bad.
Can I run my handler synchronously, in a thread somehow? There's a SyncConsumer, but that seems to have something to do with Web Sockets. It doesn't seem applicable to Long Polling.
Using AsyncHttpConsumer as a reference, I was able to write an almost exact duplicate of the class, but subclassing SyncConsumer instead of AsyncConsumer as AsyncHttpConsumer does.
After a bit of testing, I soon realized that since my code was all running in a single thread, until the handle() method finished running, which presumably runs until done, the disconnect() method wouldn't be triggered, so there was no way to interrupt a long running handle() method, even if the client disconnects.
The following new version runs handle() in a thread, and gives the user 2 ways to check if the client disconnected:
from channels.consumer import SyncConsumer
from channels.exceptions import StopConsumer
from threading import Thread, Event
# We can't pass self.client_disconnected to handle() as a reference if it's
# a regular bool. That means if we use a regular bool, and the variable
# changes in this thread, it won't change in the handle() method. Using a
# class fixes this.
# Technically, we could just pass the Event() object
# (self.client_disconnected) to the handle() method, but then the client
# needs to know to use .is_set() instead of just checking if it's True or
# False. This is easier for the client.
class RefBool:
def __init__(self):
self.val = Event()
def set(self):
self.val.set()
def __bool__(self):
return self.val.is_set()
def __repr__(self):
current_value = bool(self)
return f"RefBool({current_value})"
class SyncHttpConsumer(SyncConsumer):
"""
Sync HTTP consumer. Provides basic primitives for building synchronous
HTTP endpoints.
"""
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super().__init__(*args, **kwargs)
self.handle_thread = None
self.client_disconnected = RefBool()
self.body = []
def send_headers(self, *, status=200, headers=None):
"""
Sets the HTTP response status and headers. Headers may be provided as
a list of tuples or as a dictionary.
Note that the ASGI spec requires that the protocol server only starts
sending the response to the client after ``self.send_body`` has been
called the first time.
"""
if headers is None:
headers = []
elif isinstance(headers, dict):
headers = list(headers.items())
self.send(
{"type": "http.response.start", "status": status, "headers": headers}
)
def send_body(self, body, *, more_body=False):
"""
Sends a response body to the client. The method expects a bytestring.
Set ``more_body=True`` if you want to send more body content later.
The default behavior closes the response, and further messages on
the channel will be ignored.
"""
assert isinstance(body, bytes), "Body is not bytes"
self.send(
{"type": "http.response.body", "body": body, "more_body": more_body}
)
def send_response(self, status, body, **kwargs):
"""
Sends a response to the client. This is a thin wrapper over
``self.send_headers`` and ``self.send_body``, and everything said
above applies here as well. This method may only be called once.
"""
self.send_headers(status=status, **kwargs)
self.send_body(body)
def handle(self, body):
"""
Receives the request body as a bytestring. Response may be composed
using the ``self.send*`` methods; the return value of this method is
thrown away.
"""
raise NotImplementedError(
"Subclasses of SyncHttpConsumer must provide a handle() method."
)
def disconnect(self):
"""
Overrideable place to run disconnect handling. Do not send anything
from here.
"""
pass
def http_request(self, message):
"""
Sync entrypoint - concatenates body fragments and hands off control
to ``self.handle`` when the body has been completely received.
"""
if "body" in message:
self.body.append(message["body"])
if not message.get("more_body"):
full_body = b"".join(self.body)
self.handle_thread = Thread(target=self.handle, args=(full_body, self.client_disconnected), daemon=True)
self.handle_thread.start()
def http_disconnect(self, message):
"""
Let the user do their cleanup and close the consumer.
"""
self.client_disconnected.set()
self.disconnect()
self.handle_thread.join()
raise StopConsumer()
The SyncHttpConsumer class is used very similarly to how you would use the AsyncHttpConsumer class - you subclass it, and define a handle() method. The only difference is that the handle() method takes an extra arg:
class MyClass(SyncHttpConsumer):
def handle(self, body, client_disconnected):
while not client_disconnected:
...
Or you could, just like with the AsyncHttpConsumer class, override the disconnect() method instead if you prefer.
I'm still not sure if this is the best way to do this, or why Django Channels doesn't include something like this in addition to AsyncHttpConsumer. If anyone knows, please let us know.
I'm trying to create a simple signal which prints something after a new object of the Staff model is saved in the Django-admin. The MVC python files live in AppName. Here is the code in each file:
models.py
from django.db import models
from django.db.models import signals
from django.dispatch import Signal
from django.contrib.auth.models import User
from AppName.signals import printfunction
from django.db.models.signals import post_save
class Staff(User):
class Meta:
proxy = True
app_label = 'auth'
verbose_name_plural = 'Users - Staff'
Signal.connect(printfunction, signal=signals.post_save, sender=Staff)
signals.py
def printfunction(sender, instance, signal, *args, **kwargs):
print ("signal alpha!")
However it is raising the following exception:
TypeError: connect() got an unexpected keyword argument 'signal'
I followed the 1.8 django documentation on signals. Why is this error occurring and how to fix it?
Signal.connect(receiver[, sender=None, weak=True, dispatch_uid=None])
This is a very common notation for documentation. It is not literal code that can be used as-is. The arguments in between [ and ] are optional, if you leave them out they will use the default values. connect is a method on the class Signal. Unless otherwise specified, you can assume it is an instance method. Instead of literally calling Signal.connect(), you should call signal_instance.connect(), where signal_instance is of course an instance of the Signal class.
In this case, signals.post_save is an instance of Signal, and it's the instance to which you want to connect your function. The receiver argument is required, and in this case it is your function printfunction. sender, weak and dispatch_uid are all optional. In your example you're only passing in Staff as the sender, and you leave the other arguments as their default values. So, your final function call should look like this:
signals.post_save.connect(printfunction, sender=Staff)
Here's its the right way to do it:
#receiver(post_save, sender=Staff)
def printfunction(sender, instance, signal, *args, **kwargs):
print ("signal alpha!")
I am currently developing a Django application based on django-tenants-schema. You don't need to look into the actual code of the module, but the idea is that it has a global setting for the current database connection defining which schema to use for the application tenant, e.g.
tenant = tenants_schema.get_tenant()
And for setting
tenants_schema.set_tenant(xxx)
For some of the tasks I would like them to remember the current global tenant selected during the instantiation, e.g. in theory:
class AbstractTask(Task):
'''
Run this method before returning the task future
'''
def before_submit(self):
self.run_args['tenant'] = tenants_schema.get_tenant()
'''
This method is run before related .run() task method
'''
def before_run(self):
tenants_schema.set_tenant(self.run_args['tenant'])
Is there an elegant way of doing it in celery?
Celery (as of 3.1) has signals you can hook into to do this. You can alter the kwargs that were passed in, and on the other side, undo your alterations before they're given to the actual task:
from celery import shared_task
from celery.signals import before_task_publish, task_prerun, task_postrun
from threading import local
current_tenant = local()
#before_task_publish.connect
def add_tenant_to_task(body=None, **unused):
body['kwargs']['tenant_middleware.tenant'] = getattr(current_tenant, 'id', None)
print 'sending tenant: {t}'.format(t=current_tenant.id)
#task_prerun.connect
def extract_tenant_from_task(kwargs=None, **unused):
tenant_id = kwargs.pop('tenant_middleware.tenant', None)
current_tenant.id = tenant_id
print 'current_tenant.id set to {t}'.format(t=tenant_id)
#task_postrun.connect
def cleanup_tenant(**kwargs):
current_tenant.id = None
print 'cleaned current_tenant.id'
#shared_task
def get_current_tenant():
# Here is where you would do work that relied on current_tenant.id being set.
import time
time.sleep(1)
return current_tenant.id
And if you run the task (not showing logging from the worker):
In [1]: current_tenant.id = 1234; ct = get_current_tenant.delay(); current_tenant.id = 5678; ct.get()
sending tenant: 1234
Out[1]: 1234
In [2]: current_tenant.id
Out[2]: 5678
The signals are not called if no message is sent (when you call the task function directly, without delay() or apply_async()). If you want to filter on the task name, it is available as body['task'] in the before_task_publish signal handler, and the task object itself is available in the task_prerun and task_postrun handlers.
I am a Celery newbie, so I can't really tell if this is the "blessed" way of doing "middleware"-type stuff in Celery, but I think it will work for me.
I'm not sure what you mean here, is before_submit executed before the task is called by a client?
In that case I would rather use a with statement here:
from contextlib import contextmanager
#contextmanager
def set_tenant_db(tenant):
prev_tenant = tenants_schema.get_tenant()
try:
tenants_scheme.set_tenant(tenant)
yield
finally:
tenants_schema.set_tenant(prev_tenant)
#app.task
def tenant_task(tenant=None):
with set_tenant_db(tenant):
do_actions_here()
tenant_task.delay(tenant=tenants_scheme.get_tenant())
You can of course create a base task that does this automatically,
you can apply the context in Task.__call__ for example, but I'm not sure
if that saves you much if you can just use the with statement explicitly.
In my django piston API, I want to yield/return a http response to the the client before calling another function that will take quite some time. How do I make the yield give a HTTP response containing the desired JSON and not a string relating to the creation of a generator object?
My piston handler method looks like so:
def create(self, request):
data = request.data
*other operations......................*
incident.save()
response = rc.CREATED
response.content = {"id":str(incident.id)}
yield response
manage_incident(incident)
Instead of the response I want, like:
{"id":"13"}
The client gets a string like this:
"<generator object create at 0x102c50050>"
EDIT:
I realise that using yield was the wrong way to go about this, in essence what I am trying to achieve is that the client receives a response right away before the server moves onto the time costly function of manage_incident()
This doesn't have anything to do with generators or yielding, but I've used the following code and decorator to have things run in the background while returning the client an HTTP response immediately.
Usage:
#postpone
def long_process():
do things...
def some_view(request):
long_process()
return HttpResponse(...)
And here's the code to make it work:
import atexit
import Queue
import threading
from django.core.mail import mail_admins
def _worker():
while True:
func, args, kwargs = _queue.get()
try:
func(*args, **kwargs)
except:
import traceback
details = traceback.format_exc()
mail_admins('Background process exception', details)
finally:
_queue.task_done() # so we can join at exit
def postpone(func):
def decorator(*args, **kwargs):
_queue.put((func, args, kwargs))
return decorator
_queue = Queue.Queue()
_thread = threading.Thread(target=_worker)
_thread.daemon = True
_thread.start()
def _cleanup():
_queue.join() # so we don't exit too soon
atexit.register(_cleanup)
Perhaps you could do something like this (be careful though):
import threading
def create(self, request):
data = request.data
# do stuff...
t = threading.Thread(target=manage_incident,
args=(incident,))
t.setDaemon(True)
t.start()
return response
Have anyone tried this? Is it safe? My guess is it's not, mostly because of concurrency issues but also due to the fact that if you get a lot of requests, you might also get a lot of processes (since they might be running for a while), but it might be worth a shot.
Otherwise, you could just add the incident that needs to be managed to your database and handle it later via a cron job or something like that.
I don't think Django is built either for concurrency or very time consuming operations.
Edit
Someone have tried it, seems to work.
Edit 2
These kind of things are often better handled by background jobs. The Django Background Tasks library is nice, but there are others of course.
You've turned your view into a generator thinking that Django will pick up on that fact and handle it appropriately. Well, it won't.
def create(self, request):
return HttpResponse(real_create(request))
EDIT:
Since you seem to be having trouble... visualizing it...
def stuff():
print 1
yield 'foo'
print 2
for i in stuff():
print i
output:
1
foo
2
def pre_save(self, model_instance, add):
value = super(MediaUploadField, self).pre_save(model_instance, add)
if value and add:
post_save.connect(self.someCallback, sender=model_instance.__class__, dispatch_uid='media_attachment_signal')
return value
def someCallback(sender, **kwargs):
print "callback"
print sender
return
Is throwing the following error:
someCallback() got multiple values for keyword argument 'sender'
I honestly can't work out what I'm doing wrong, I followed the documentation precisely. I tried replacing model_instance.class with the actual class import but it throws the same error.
Does any have any idea whats wrong with my code?
It seems that someCallback is a model method. The first argument to model methods is always the instance itself - which is usually referenced as self. But you've called the first argument sender - so Python is trying to receive sender both as the first positional argument, and as one of the keyword arguments.
The best way to solve this is to define someCallback as a staticmethod, as these don't take the instance or class:
#staticmethod
def someCallback(sender, **kwargs):
Also note that connecting your post_save handler in a pre_save method is a very strange thing to do. Don't forget that connecting a signal is a permanent thing - it's not something that's done on a per-call basis.