Say I have a phone book with 3 fields and a model to represent it:
Name
Age
Phone
I'm writing an API to post new entries, get existing entries and modify existing entries. For the sake of this question, my constraints are:
for POST I'd like to be able to write all three fields when creating a new record.
for GET I'd like to return only the Age and Phone
for PUT I'd like to allow only the phone field to be updated.
Given the rigidness of the class meta and where I can define extra_kwargs with definitions for each field such as read_only and write_only -- Will I need three separate ModelSerializer classes? or can I somehow have some kind of condition in a single ModelSerializer in order to support my constraints.
Thanks
or can I somehow have some kind of condition in a single
ModelSerializer in order to support my constraints.
Yes, you can in fact when most people start off using DRF. This is the approach taken. Certainly, I went down that path myself. But it's just not worth it.
It's much much easier and fewer lines of code to use multiple serializes. Specially if you are using Views instead of Viewsets. If you are using Viewsets, override the get_serializer_class
Related
I am starting a web application in pure Django. However, in the future, there might be a requirement for REST api. If it happens, the most obvious choice will be Django REST framework.
Both the "old-fashioned" and REST parts share the models, however, the views are slightly different (permissions definitions, for example) and forms are replaced with serializers. Doing it the most obvious way would mean to duplicate the application logic several times, and thus a failure to follow DRY principle, and so the code becomes unmaintainable.
I got an idea to write all the logic into models (since they are shared), but in such case, there will be no use of permission mixins, generic views and the code would not be among the nicest ones.
Now I ran out of ideas. What is the best practice here?
I'd try to keep things simple as you're not sure about the future requirements for the API, and guessing can introduce extra complexity that may not even be needed when requirements will be clear.
Both Django forms and Rest Framework serializers already offer you a declarative approach that abstracts away the boilerplate code needed for basic stuff, which normally accounts for most of your code anyway.
For example, one of your Django form could look like this:
class ArticleForm(ModelForm):
class Meta:
model = Article
fields = ['title', 'content']
And in the future the DRS serializer would be:
class ArticleSerializer(ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Article
fields = ['title', 'content']
As you can see, if you try and stick to ModelForm and ModelSerializer, there won't be much duplication anyway. You can also simply store the fields list in a variable and just reuse that.
For more custom things, you can start by sharing logic into simple functions, for example:
def save_article_with_author(article_data, author_data):
# custom data manipulation before saving, consider that article_data will be a dictionary either if it comes from deserialized JSON (api) or POST data
# send email, whatever
This function can be shared between your form and serializer.
For everything related to data fetching, I'd try to use Model Managers as much as possible, defining custom querysets that can be resued e.g. for options by forms and serializers.
I tend to avoid writing any logic that doesn't directly read or write data into the model classes. I think that couples too much the business logic with the data layer. As an example, I never want to write any auth/permission checks into a save() method of a model, because that couples different layers too tightly.
As a rule of thumb, imagine this scenario: you add say permissions checks or the logic to send an email when a user is created overriding the save() method of your Article model.
Then, later on you're asked to write a simple manage command that batch-import users from a spreadsheet. At this point, what you did in your save() method really gets in the way, as you can freely access your data through your model without having to bother with permissions, emails and all of that.
Regarding the view layer and assuming you need to implement some shared auth/permission checks and you don't want to have separate views, you can use this approach:
https://www.django-rest-framework.org/topics/html-and-forms/
Blockquote
REST framework is suitable for returning both API style responses, and regular HTML pages. Additionally, serializers can be used as HTML forms and rendered in templates.
Here's some guidelines on how you could dynamically switch from HTML to JSON based to the request content type:
https://www.django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/renderers/#advanced-renderer-usage
This seems like a good option in your situation, I'd just write down a quick proof-of-concept before you go all in to see if you are not too limited for what you need to do.
I am learning django rest framework, while I understand what a serializer does and when you would use it, I cannot fully seat the need for a serializer and a model serialzer class. Can one of you please give me a concrete real world example use case of both please?
Yes I have gone through the tutorial on DRF website several times and I still am experiencing fuzziness
There is an excellent example on the DRF tutorial and it would take too much to cover in an answer, but I would like to make some points.
First, the DRF documentation explains:
Our SnippetSerializer class is replicating a lot of information that's also contained in the Snippet model. It would be nice if we could keep our code a bit more concise.
In the same way that Django provides both Form classes and ModelForm classes, REST framework includes both Serializer classes, and ModelSerializer classes.
The Snippet model is the name of the model used in that example. So as the documentation says, rather than typing again the same fields from the model over to a Serializer, we can use a ModelSerializer as a shortcut, in a similar way that we would use a ModelForm over a simple Form.
But this leaves the question essentially as "ok, then why is there a simple Serializer class at all?", as you pointed out in your comment.
In the vast majority of cases where you have models and you need to serialize/deserialize relevant data (usually JSON but not limited to), then ModelSerializer is the way to go. Even if additional fields, related serializers or arbitrary logic is required, a ModelSerializer can be easily tweaked. Personally it has never occured to me with any of my projects that ModelSerializer is not suitable for data related to a model.
But there may be cases where you need to handle data that do not abide to a model. Such data would be POSTed to a DRF view and a Serializer would handle them. Such cases could be for example to send a mail message, to setup a Celery task, to add data to session, and many others that do not involve a model at all.
I'm working on a project that involves a form with some standard fields and some custom field users define later. The standard forms are defined on a model in models.py. For example:
class Order(models.model):
number = models.TextField()
date = models.DateField()
I then use this model to create a simple model form to make a way to fill in the information. That's pretty standard Django.
The tricky thing is that my users want to be able to add arbitrary fields to the form. They would like to be able to use the Admin interface to basically modify the form and add values to it at run time.
So, they might want a new text field called "Tracking Number" or something like that. The trick is that they only need it sometimes and they want to be able to add it dynamically without rebuilding the whole database.
I can create a fairly simple model to represent the custom fields like so:
class CustomField(models.Model):
type = models.CharField(choices=FIELD_TYPES)
required = models.BooleanField()
I think I can then take the ModelForm for the Order class and extend it to add these custom fields. What I am unsure of is how to link the custom field values back to the Order.
I know this all might sound odd, but in practice it makes sense. Each user has slightly different needs for the form and want to tweak it. If I have to hard code the models to have their specific fields, then I will have to have a fork for each user. That simply doesn't scale. If instead they can simply add the fields through the admin interface, then things are much simpler.
I feel like this is something that is perhaps already solved by someone out there. I simply cannot find a solution. I can't be the only one who has gotten this kind of request right?
I've managed to get Django Forms to dynamically generate additional fields based on the relationship between a specific instance (eg. 'product type') and another model (eg. 'product attributes') eg. products have common attributes like weight and price but a book has a page count and a computer has specs.
I'd like to be able to do the same with ModelForms so that I can just call form.save() but I'm not sure what the right approach would be to do this or where to start. At first I thought it would be possible by overriding some of the methods but then I've looked around the models.py file and it seems that I'd need to add quite a bit of code at various places in there to handle the additional fields ie. quite a lot of work. Or am I missing the easy way?
Without knowing the specifics, I'd say you're right. If the additional fields are not part of the model, then at the least, you'd have to override the ModelForm's save() method.
How can I use boolean choices in a model field to enable/disable other fields. If a boolean value is true/false I want it to enable/disable other model fields. Is there a way to natively express these relationships using django models/forms/widgets? I keep writing custom templates to model these relationships, but can't figure out a good way to represent them in django without a special template.
For example:
class PointInTime(models.Model):
is_absolute_time = models.BooleanField()
absolute_time = models.DateTimeField()
is_relative_time = models.BooleanField()
days_before = models.IntegerField()
So if the is_absolute_time is True, I want the absolute_time entry to be editable in the GUI and the days_before entry to be grayed out and not-editable. If the 'is_relative_time' flag is True, I want the absolute_time entry to be grayed out, and the days_before value to be editable. So is_absolute_time and is_relative_time would be radio buttons in the same Group in the GUI and their two corresponding fields would only be editable when their radio button is selected. This is easy to do in a customized template, but is there a way to use a model/form in django to natively show this relationship?
It would be helpful to clarify what you mean by "natively show this relationship," and think clearly about separation of concerns.
If all you want is to "gray out" or disable a certain field based on the value of another field, this is purely a presentation/UI issue, so the template (and/or Javascript) is the appropriate place to handle it.
If you want to validate that the submitted data is internally consistent (i.e. absolute_time is filled in if is_absolute_time is True, etc), that's a form-validation issue. The place for that logic is in the clean() method of your Form or ModelForm object.
If you want to ensure that no PointInTime model can ever be saved to the database without being internally consistent, that's a data-layer concern. The place for that is in a custom save() method on your model object (Django 1.2 will include a more extensive model validation system).
All of those options involve writing imperative code to do what you need with these specific fields. It may be that you're looking for a way to represent the situation declaratively in your model so that the code in all three of the above cases can be written generically instead of specifically. There's no built-in Django way to do this, but you could certainly do something like:
class PointInTime(models.Model):
field_dependencies = {'is_absolute_time': 'absolute_time',
'is_relative_time': 'days_before'}
... fields here ...
Then your model save() code (or your Form clean() code, or your template), could use this dictionary to determine which fields should be enabled/disabled depending on the value of which other one. This generalization is hardly worth the effort, though, unless you anticipate needing to do this same thing in a number of different models.
Lastly, a few schema design alternatives you may want to consider to get your data layer better normalized:
If there are only two valid states (absolute and relative), use a single boolean field instead of two. Then you avoid possible inconsistencies (what does it mean if both booleans are False? Or True?)
Or simplify further by eliminating the booleans entirely and just using Null values in one or the other of absolute_time/days_before.
If there might be more than two valid states, use a single IntegerField or CharField with choices instead of using two boolean fields. Same reason as above, but can accomodate more than two options.
Since a RelativeTime and an AbsoluteTime don't appear to share any data fields with each other, consider splitting them out into separate models entirely. If you have other models that need a ForeignKey to either one or the other, you could model that with inheritance (both RelativeTime and AbsoluteTime inherit from PointInTime, other models have ForeignKeys to PointInTime).
I'm not entirely sure what you're doing with these objects but whichever the user chooses, you're pointing to a single moment in time. "5 days ago" is "Thursday" and vice-versa.
So unless the dates roll with the site (eg the record with "5 days ago" will still mean Thursday, tomorrow, etc), surely this is only an interface problem? If that's the case, I'd stick with a single value for the date in your Model and let the form and view do all the work.
That solves the auto-generated Admin side of things as you'll just have one field to contend with but it won't natively give you the choice between the two unless you write your own form widget and override the ModelAdmin class for your Model.
If this isn't the case, please ignore this answer.