I'd like to replace an existing ForeignKey pointing at my User model with one pointing at a profile model.
The change in the model is:
created_by=models.ForeignKey(settings.AUTH_USER_MODULE)
To:
created_by=models.ForeignKey(settings.PROFILE_MODEL)
The auto-generated migration looks like (with constants subbed in):
migrations.AlterField(
model_name=MODEL,
name='created_by',
field=models.ForeignKey(to=settings.PROFILE_MODEL),
preserve_default=True,
),
I also have ManyToManyFields to deal with as well. What I have in my head is I'd like a function to run on each MODEL object to resolve the user object to the profile object. How would I go about doing this?
The relationship between user and profile is (and vice versa):
User.profile = Profile
Edit: Forgot to mention, if the auto-generated migration is run you get the following error:
ValueError: Lookup failed for model referenced by field
APP1.MODEL.created_by: APP2.PROFILE_MODEL
As I understand now you want to migrate only our app without expecting anything to be changed to the global auth User model. Then it's easy. Migrations work nice with symbolic settings names.
I tried it with Django 1.7. It is possible to switch between settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL and settings.PROFILE_MODEL back and forth without any problem. A migration can be created and applied after every change. The tested model had also a ManyToManyField and mutual relationships between User and Profile.
I see you have APP1 and APP2. Maybe you make migrations for both and they are circular dependent so that a part of other application migration should be applied before the current one migration can be completely applied and vice versa. It can be simplified by spliting a change to more smaller and making automatic migrations after every change so that they are less dependent. A OneToOneField is better than two mutual foreign keys and its reverse relation is even so useful. A foreign key can be changed temporarily to IntegerField(null=True) in the worst case in order to simplify data migration. It is really viable more or less nice.
The question looked nice initially, but the problem should be better specified to be reproducible.
Edited by removing the original text after reading information in comments:
Related
Trying to solve this chicken-and-egg issue. I've defined a new model which an existing model foreign keys into, and made the new migrations, including a data migration that provisions some defaults for the new model.
In the serializer for the existing model, I wanted to define a default like so:
new_thing = serializers.PrimaryKeyRelatedField(
queryset=NewThing.objects.all(),
default=NewThing.objects.get(id=DEFAULT_NEW_THING_ID),
)
I don't understand django's specific mechanism, but this seems to cause problems while running the migrations (although the makemigrations seems fine). It seems the migration runs a series of app checks on the views and eventually the serializer, where it evaluates the NewThing QuerySet and returns an error that the relation for NewThing does not exist (since the migration hasn't been run yet).
You should never run actual queries in class-level definitions; this is generally true in both Django generally as well as DRF. get is a query and will hit the database at definition time, although the queryset argument will not and is OK.
If you want to set a default that is based on an actual object, you should do it at create time by defining the create() method, in which you would check that the value is not supplied.
I'm trying to remove a concrete parent model and copy some of its fields directly onto the child. I have performed a similar process several times before using South (the same parent model on other children), but since upgrading to Django 1.7, it's just not playing the game. Django gives the following error during the migrate process:
FieldError: Local field <field_name> in class <child_model> clashes with field of similar name from base class <parent_model>
At the point that both makemigrations and migrate are run and this error occurs, the parent model no longer appears in the code as the parent of the class, yet the migration still complains.
A similar question has been asked here before and the accepted solution involves creating a new model, copying data to it, replacing the existing model, and copying the data back. Unfortunately, this approach will not work in my case. It is an established model with numerous foreign keys pointing back to it, which would be lost if the original records were removed.
The (simplified) approach I used under South was:
Remove the model as the parent and add the new fields to the child
Add an explicit primary key field with the same name as the old auto *_ptr_id field
Run schemamigration and edit the file to:
Remove South's attempt to remove and recreate the *_ptr field
Add some custom logic to remove the ForeignKey-ness of the *_ptr_id field and add PrimaryKey-ness
Use a datamigration to grab the values off the old parent and add them to the new fields on the child
This is the approach I was hoping would be reasonably easily adapted to native Django migrations, and I got (with some tweaking) the *_ptr_id field replacement logic going. But Django won't let me add the new fields. I have tried the following:
Removing the parent model and performing the custom *_ptr_id replacement, migrating, and adding the fields as a second migration.
Removing the parent model and not editing the file to manually mess with *_ptr_id, but leaving Django's remove/add operations and migrating with --fake.
In both scenarios, a later migration that adds new fields with the same name as those on the old parent causes the above error. Django refuses to acknowledge that the old parent model is no longer a parent of the class.
Has anyone else had this problem and been able to work around it?
Edit:
This appears to be caused by the bases argument of the CreateModel schema operation class listing the parent model, and the lack of a matching operation to update the list. The documentation for CreateModel lists this argument as optional, but are there any side-effects to manually changing this value in a previously applied migration?
After hitting this same problem in Django 1.11, I followed the edited advice and found the initial 'CreateModel' call in my migrations files. Commenting out the bases=('{appname}.{modelname}',), line and explicitly setting my model's primary key to be 'id' then re-running makemigrations and migrate fixed the issue for me.
I'm not sure if the primary key change is relevant to the solution, I'm just laying out variables.
Another option for people less invested in their model name (and data): rename it when you remove the parent. Note that while this worked for me, switching back to the original model name in another migration hit this same "once a child, always a child" error, so you'll still need to edit the 'bases=' line in your migrations.
Thanks oogles and Community!
Back in previous versions of Django, we all used South to do migrations, and because it wasn't as smart as we might have liked, we sometimes needed to tell it to explicitly ignore some fields because such fields were too complicated for it to handle. We did this with add_ignored_fields and everything pretty much worked.
In our case, we have a "field" on our model that's a subclass of CharField that actually attaches two additional fields to the model via the contribute_to_class method. It's kind of a weird process, but it makes sense for our use case and worked just fine until we upgraded to Django 1.7.
However, with the new migrations system, our use of add_ignored_fields() no longer works and our unit tests are exploding as it tries to create a test database table with these fields. Specifically it says:
django.db.utils.OperationalError: duplicate column name: our_column_name
In this case our_column_name is one of the fields this special CharField subclass creates.
In a perfect world, we could have the migration code handle these fields properly, but I'd settle for the 1.7 version of add_ignored_fields() if it exists.
I should also point out that we've found the explanation for deconstruct in the Django documentation, but I'm afraid that it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't figure out if it applies to this situation or not.
We've discovered this Django ticket that pretty much states that this is a design pattern that the devs aren't supporting, so we're just going to have to rewrite the model to explicitly create the other fields on the model and then reference said fields from the "parent" field a la ImageField.
I have defined some models within an application, call it "blog".
djangoproject
/blog
models.py
I now want to change the models location, for example put them here:
djangoproject
/blog
xxx
/all_models
models.py
From the code point of view, this is pretty trivial, but the I guess there will be problems on the database since all the tables Django and South created are now called blog_posts blog_comments, Django relies on this naming convention and I don't want to lose the data already present in the database.
How to do this?
The easiest thing is not to bother changing the tables at all, but the code. Inside the Meta class of each of your models, put the declaration db_table = "blog_tablename", and Django will find them without problems.
You can solve this in two ways.
The first and easier one is to provide a db_table in Meta class of each of your models. The other is create a migration to apply the change.
As far as I know south doesn't support table rename, so you should do it as a three way migration:
Move de models, and create migration (now you have both tables old and new)
Create a data migration and iterate over the former table, copying objects to later
Remove the former model, and create a migration for it.
You can read a little bit more about the second way in south docs
How does Django handle changes to my Model? Or, what help does it offer me to do this?
I am thinking of a situation where I have already have published data to my DB which I don't want to lose, but I need to make changes to my data model - for example, adding extra fields to a particular class, changing the types of fields, etc. My understanding is that syncdb won't ever alter tables that already exist in the DB.
For example, let's say I have the following model:
class Person(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
phone_number=models.CharField(max_length=200)
hair_colour=CharField(max_length=50)
Things I might want to do to Person off the top of my head:
I wish to add an 'age' field.
I realise I want to use IntegerField instead of CharField for phone_number (whether this is a good idea or not, is out of scope...) - assuming it's possible.
I realise that I no longer wish to define hair_colour 'inline' within Person, because several people share the same hair colour - I wish instead to change this to be a foreign key to some other model.
Whilst I can imagine some of these are tough/impossible for the framework to 'guess' exactly what needs to be done to my data if all I do is update the models.py, I can imagine that there might still be some tooling to help enable it - does it exist?
In particular I imagine there must be some good patterns for option 1.
I'm very new to Django and have no experience with any other ORM-type stuff, which I think this is - I've always been a bit suspicious of ORMs, mainly for the reasons above :)
Django itself will not attempt to modify an already created database table. What you are trying to do is typically called "Migration" and there are a couple of different Database Migration tools available for Django.
South
Schema Migrations
Data Migrations
Backwards Migrations
Nash Vegas
Schema Migrations
Data Migrations
Django Evolution
Schema Migrations
Data Migrations (Unknown)
Backwards Migrations (Unknown)
Of the three South is probably the most widely used but they each have different ways of dealing with migrations. You can see more details on the comparison on Django Packages.
Much of what you're asking about can be done with the django project South. You add it as an INSTALLED_APP. Create a baseline, then as your model changes it creates SQL statements to convert your tables and the rows with-in the tables to the new model format.