I can't figure out how to serialize a query that includes fields from a reverse related model. My models look like this. Every vote is linked to a single album:
# models.py
class Album(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
class Vote(models.Model):
album = models.ForeignKey(Album, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
user_vote = models.BooleanField(default=0)
What I'd like to do is perform a query that returns all Album objects, as well as a sum of the votes attributed to that album. That's easy enough, but when I serialize the query, the "total_votes" field is lost:
# views.py
# this works fine
query = Album.objects.annotate(total_votes = Sum(vote__user_vote))
# after serialization, I lose the field "total_votes"
serialized = serializers.serialize('json', list(query))
return serialized
Unfortunately, the field "total_votes" doesn't appear in the serialized result since, according to Django documentation, "only the fields that are locally defined on the model will be serialized."
So my question is, how do I get the following serialized result (assuming there are 100 votes for Abbey Road and 150 for Astral Weeks)? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
[
{
"pk": 1,
"model": "app.album",
"fields": {
"name": "Abbey Road",
"total_votes": 100
},
{
"pk": 2,
"model": "app.album",
"fields": {
"name": "Astral Weeks",
"total_votes": 150
},
...
]
According to the source, there’s no way to do this using serializers.serialize. The base django serializer will only serialize local_fields on the model instance:
for field in concrete_model._meta.local_fields:
if field.serialize:
if field.remote_field is None:
if self.selected_fields is None or field.attname in self.selected_fields:
self.handle_field(obj, field)
else:
if self.selected_fields is None or field.attname[:-3] in self.selected_fields:
self.handle_fk_field(obj, field)
for field in concrete_model._meta.many_to_many:
if field.serialize:
if self.selected_fields is None or field.attname in self.selected_fields:
self.handle_m2m_field(obj, field)
In order to get what you want, you’d have to roll your own serialization function (e.g., something that converts your model to a dict and then uses the DjangoJSONEncoder).
Related
in my post requests to OrderProduct model, i want to only have to pass order.id and product.id and it works... untill i add a serializer to retrieve product.name. It might be because i didnt understand documentation about nested requests, but im unable to advance further into my project :(
[
{
"id": 2,
"order": 1,
"product": 1,
}
]
^ here's how it looks without nested serializer, and thats the data that i wanna have to input
[
{
"id": 2,
"order": 1,
"product": {
"id": 1,
"name": "gloomhaven",
},
},
^ here's how it looks after i add an additional serializer. I pretty much want these nested fields to be read only, with me still being able to send simple post requests
here are my serializers
class OrderProductSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
product = Product()
class Meta:
model = OrderProduct
fields = [
"id",
"order",
"product"]
class Product(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Product
fields = (
"id",
"name")
Is there any way for me to accomplish this? Thank you for trying to help!
Just overwrite to_representation method of the serializer
def to_representation(self, instance):
response = super().to_representation(instance)
response['other_field'] = instance.id# also response['other_field'] = otherSerializer(instance.model)
return response
This can solve your problem
I think you are missing many=True
class OrderProductSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
product = Product(many=True)
class Meta:
model = OrderProduct
fields = [
"id",
"order",
"product"]
{
"product_name": "CRVRVgfhghg",
"product_price": "0.01",
"product_location": "KIKUYU,KENYA",
"product_description": "VFVFVFVFVFVF",
"product_category_name": "livestock",
"product_farmer_name": "james",
"product_category_data": {
"product_category_name": "livestock",
"product_category_description": "livestock one"
},
"product_product_file_data": {
"product_file_name": "ok"
}
}
i have three tables: product_category,product and product_product_files...what i want is to populate all the three tables at once using one view and url pattern... is there a way i can do this using serializers??
I think what you are looking for is the following documentation DRF writable nested serializers.
Looking at this you'll see that they state the following:
'By default nested serializers are read-only. If you want to support write-operations to a nested serializer field you'll need to create create() and/or update() methods in order to explicitly specify how the child relationships should be saved:'
This is the example they use:
class TrackSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = Track
fields = ['order', 'title', 'duration']
class AlbumSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
tracks = TrackSerializer(many=True)
class Meta:
model = Album
fields = ['album_name', 'artist', 'tracks']
def create(self, validated_data):
tracks_data = validated_data.pop('tracks')
album = Album.objects.create(**validated_data)
for track_data in tracks_data:
Track.objects.create(album=album, **track_data)
return album
The data they put in then should look like this:
data = {
'album_name': 'The Grey Album',
'artist': 'Danger Mouse',
'tracks': [
{'order': 1, 'title': 'Public Service Announcement', 'duration': 245},
{'order': 2, 'title': 'What More Can I Say', 'duration': 264},
{'order': 3, 'title': 'Encore', 'duration': 159},
],
Looking at your code-snippet I would guess these models are related in a One-to-one relationship. In this case many=False which is also the default. You could do that for both models.
I think you would be able to get to the right code with this information, if not please let me know.
I have a model where users can upvote other users for specific topics. Something like:
#models.py
Class Topic(models.Model):
name = models.StringField()
def __str__(self):
return str(self.name)
Class UserUpvotes(models.Model):
"""Holds total upvotes by user and topic"""
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
topic= models.ForeignKey(Topic)
upvotes = models.PositiveIntegerField(default=0)
Using DRF, I have an API that returns the following: topic_id, topic_name, and upvotes, which is the total upvotes for a given topic.
One of the project requirements is for the API to use these field names specifically: topic_id, topic_name, and upvotes
#serializers.py
class TopicUpvotesSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
topic_name = serializers.StringRelatedField(source="topic")
class Meta:
model = UserUpvotes
fields = ["topic_id", "topic_name", "upvotes"]
My trouble is aggregating these fields. I'm filtering the UserUpvotes by user or team and then aggregating by topic.
Desired output
This is the result I want to get. When I don't perform any aggregations (and there are views where this will be the case), it works.
[
{
"topic_id": 3,
"topic_name": "Korean Studies",
"upvotes": 14
},
{
"topic_id": 12,
"topic_name": "Inflation",
"upvotes": 3
},
]
At first, I tried creating a TopicSerializer, and then assigning it to the topic field in TopicUpvotesSerializer. But then, the resulting json would have a nested "topic" field and the aggragation would fail.
Attempt 1
#views.py
def get_queryset(self):
return (
UserUpvotes.objects.filter(user__team=team)
.values("topic")
.annotate(upvotes=models.Sum("upvotes"))
.order_by("-upvotes")
)
My problem is that the topic_id and topic_name fields are not showing. I get something like:
[
{
"topic_name": "3",
"upvotes": 14
},
{
"topic_name": "12",
"upvotes": 3
},
]
Attempt 2
Another queryset attempt:
# views.py
def get_queryset(self):
return (
UserUpvotes.objects.filter(user__team=team)
.values("topic__id", "topic__name")
.annotate(upvotes=models.Sum("upvotes"))
.order_by("-upvotes")
)
Which yields:
[
{
"upvotes": 14
},
{
"upvotes": 3
},
]
The aggregation worked on the queryset level, but the serializer failed to find the correct fields.
Attempt 3
This was the closest I got:
# views.py
def get_queryset(self):
return (
UserUpvotes.objects.filter(user__team=team)
.values("topic__id", "topic__name")
.annotate(upvotes=models.Sum("upvotes"))
.values("topic_id", "topic", "upvotes")
.order_by("-upvotes")[:n]
)
[
{
"topic_name": 3,
"topic_name": "3",
"upvotes": 14
},
{
"topic_name": 12,
"topic_name": "12",
"upvotes": 3
},
]
I have no idea why "topic_name" is simply transforming the "topic_id" into a string, instead of calling the string method.
Work with a serializer for the topic:
class TopicSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
upvotes = serializers.IntegerField(read_only=True)
class Meta:
model = Topic
fields = ['id', 'name', 'upvotes']
then in the ModelViewSet, you annotate:
from django.db.models import Sum
from rest_framework.viewsets import ModelViewSet
class TopicViewSet(ModelViewSet):
serializer_class = TopicSerializer
queryset = Topic.objects.annotate(upvotes=Sum('userupvotes__upvotes'))
Desired output
This is the result I want to get. When I don't perform any aggregations (and there are views where this will be the case), it works.
[
{
"topic_name": 3,
"topic_name": "Korean Studies",
"upvotes": 14
},
{
"topic_name": 12,
"topic_name": "Inflation",
"upvotes": 3
},
]
The serialized FK will always give you the ID of the related model. I am not sure why you name it topic_name if that is equal to an ID. Now, if you really want to get the name field of the Topic model
in the topic_name = serializers.StringRelatedField(source="topic") you should give it a source="topic.name"
However, if you trying to get the ID of the relation you can still use ModelSerializer :
class TopicUpvotesSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = UserUpvotes
fields = "__all__"
#willem-van-onsem's answer is the correct one for the problem as I had put it.
But... I had another use case (sorry! ◑﹏◐), for when the Users API used UserUpvotes serializer as a nested field. So I had to find another solution. This is was I eventually ended up with. I'm posting in case it helps anyone.
class UserUpvotesSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
topic_name = serializers.SerializerMethodField()
def get_topic_name (self, obj):
try:
_topic_name = obj.topic.name
except TypeError:
_topic_name = obj.get("skill__name", None)
return _topic_name
class Meta:
model = UserUpvotes
fields = ["topic_id", "topic_name", "upvotes"]
I still have no idea why the SerializerMethodField works and the StringRelatedField field doesn't. It feels like a bug?
Anyways, the rub here is that, after the values().annotate() aggregation, obj is no longer a QuerySet, but a dict. So accessing namedirectly will give you a 'UserUpvotes' object is not subscriptable error.
I don’t know if there are any other edge cases I should be aware of (this is when I REALLY miss type hints in Django), but it works so far
Django + rest framework. This seems like it should be a frequent and common issue, but I could not find anything like it, so here I ask:
I have a Document and its Items:
class DocumentSerializer(ModelSerializer):
...
items = ItemsSerializer(many=True, required=False)
class Meta:
model = Document
exclude = ()
class ItemsSerializer(ModelSerializer):
...
class Meta:
model = DocumentItem
exclude = ('document', ) # hide the ForeignKey as it should be obvious by nesting
Expected result for JSON serialized data something like:
{
"id": 1, "date": "2021-01-01T00:00:00Z", "title": "Test doc",
"items": [
{"code": 43, quantity: 3},
{"code": 28, quantity: 15}
]
}
It should be fairly obvious that the "document" field from ItemsSerializer should be derived from the parent serializer at the time of storage. The field itself being a ForeignKey to Document, of course.
However, I can't get past the ValidationError({"document":["This field is required."]}).
If I say the field is not required, then save()complains AssertionError: The '.create()' method does not support writable nested fields by default.
What is the accepted way of handling relations like this in serializers?
My suggestion:
Check if it makes sense to have a Document without Items.
Always when you have nested Serializer, method #create and #update should be overridde. Check documentation
So I have a Film model that holds a list of Actors model in a many to many field:
class Person(models.Model):
full = models.TextField()
short = models.TextField()
num = models.CharField(max_length=5)
class Film(models.Model):
name = models.TextField()
year = models.SmallIntegerField(blank=True)
actors = models.ManyToManyField('Person')
I'm trying to load some initial data from json fixtures, however the problem I have is loading the many to many actors field.
For example I get the error:
DeserializationError: [u"'Anna-Varney' value must be an integer."]
with these fixtures:
{
"pk": 1,
"model": "data.Film",
"fields": {
"actors": [
"Anna-Varney"
],
"name": "Like a Corpse Standing in Desperation (2005) (V)",
"year": "2005"
}
while my actors fixture looks like this:
{
"pk": 1,
"model": "data.Person",
"fields": {
"full": "Anna-Varney",
"num": "I",
"short": "Anna-Varney"
}
}
So the many to many fields must use the pk integer, but the problem is that the data isn't sorted and for a long list of actors I don't think its practical to manually look up the pk of each one. I've been looking for solutions and it seems I have to use natural keys, but I'm not exactly sure how to apply those for my models.
EDIT: I've changed my models to be:
class PersonManager(models.Manager):
def get_by_natural_key(self, full):
return self.get(full=full)
class Person(models.Model):
objects = PersonManager()
full = models.TextField()
short = models.TextField()
num = models.CharField(max_length=5)
def natural_key(self):
return self.full
But I'm still getting the same error
There's a problem with both the input and the natural_key method.
Documentation: Serializing Django objects - natural keys states:
A natural key is a tuple of values that can be used to uniquely
identify an object instance without using the primary key value.
The Person natural_key method should return a tuple
def natural_key(self):
return (self.full,)
The serialised input should also contain tuples/lists for the natural keys.
{
"pk": 1,
"model": "data.film",
"fields": {
"actors": [
[
"Matt Damon"
],
[
"Jodie Foster"
]
],
"name": "Elysium",
"year": 2013
}
}