I have a setup like in the following (simplified) example:
class Pizza(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=100)
class Favorite(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='favorites')
pizza = models.ForeignKey(Pizza, related_name='favorites')
class Meta:
unique_together = (('user', 'pizza'),)
I know that I can filter the favorites property on a Pizza model instance by the user property, but I'd like to abstract this.
In my application, a user should only have access to its personal Favorite model instances. To ensure this, I find myself having to filter all the time and do a lot of ugly and inefficient stuff.
I want to abstract this so that when a user is logged in, I should be able to access pizza.favorite, instead of pizza.favorites, which is automatically mapped to the current user's Favorite model for this particular Pizza model. Ideally, I should also be able to filter on this property (no possible with the #property annotation). Basically, it should act like the ForeignKey is now a OneToOne field.
Any ideas on how could I achieve this behaviour? I should note that un-authorized users do not concern me. The application does not provide anonymous access, so that edge case can be disregarded.
I am using Django 1.7 and I am also open to using the development version, if that would help.
Related
I have one model called Weight (filled by User input/choice) and another called Enterprise.
class Weight(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User, on_delete=models.CASCADE, related_name="weights")
weight_of_history = models.IntegerField(null=True, blank=True)
class Enterprise(models.Model):
...
The weight is saved, one per user, and replaced everytime the user choose new one.
Inside the Enterprise class, I am creating an property that must get the "weight_of_history" (depending on the user, who has chosen the weight) from Weight class, but the models have no Foreign key or related name between them.
class Enterprise(models.Model):
...
#property
def ranking(self):
weight_of_history = <-- HERE I NEED TO TAKE WEIGHT_HISTORY FROM THE FIRST MODEL
THEN I COULD CALCULATE
How could I do that? Thank you!
You can use django's powerful query functionality and fetch the required objects from the db. Here are the docs that might help you with that. Django docs are amazing, so I would recommend that you read up on queries, models, and forms to have easier time with you project.
For your example we can fetch all the weights for the user in one query by filtering the weights by user. In fact, django ORM allows for chaining filters and you can create really sophisticated queries
class Enterprise(models.Model):
...
#property
def ranking(self):
weight_of_history = Weight.objects.filter(user=some_user)
If you do not know the user beforehand, then you can do inside the view and grab the user that makes the request and filter using this user:
#views.py
user_making_request = request.user
weight_of_history = Weight.objects.filter(user=user_making_request)
I am working in django, am planning a database for rides for users.
each User can be on multiple Rides (over time) and each Ride can have multiple Users (passengers) in it.
Also, for each Ride there has to be only one Driver (also a User) so I think I have a many-to many relationship between the Rides and Users tables for what user is on what ride, and also a One-To-Many relationship between the Rides's Driver_id and the User_id. right?
My questions are-
I saw in the django docs that I should put a many-to-many field in One of the models. Does it matter which one? and also, does it create a new table like rides_users?
and also, what is the difference (in One-To-many relationship) between using a foreignKey field and a OneToManyField field?
EDIT:
Currently, there are my models:
def get_image_path(models.Model):
return os.path.join('photos',str(instance.id),filename)
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user=models.OneToOneField(User)
phone_number=models.CharField(max_length=12)
profile_picture=models.ImageField(upload_to=get_image_path, black=True, null=True)
class Ride(models.Model):
driver=models.ForeignKey(UserProfile, related_name="r_driver")
destination=models.ForeignKey(Destination, related_name="r_final_destination")
leaving_time=models.DateTimeField()
num_of_spots=models.IntergerField()
passengers=models.ManyToMany(UserProfile, related_name="r_passengers")
mid_destinations=models.ManyToMany(Destination, related_name="r_mid_destinations")
class Destination(models.Model):
name=models.CharField(max_length=30)
As you can see, each Ride has multiple mid_destination and multiple passengers. a Ride also has One driver and One final destination.
The Issue is - when a User adds a Ride, I want the driver, destination and mid_destinations and the rest of the fields to be set by the User (the driver is user adding the Ride), Except for the passengers field. I want the other Users to add themselves to the ride, so when the Ride is created the User (driver) doesn't have to set the passengers.
How do I go about it? and also, any other suggestions about the models?
There is no such thing as a OneToManyField.
It doesn't matter from a practical point of view which side the ManyToManyField lives on. Personally, I'd put it on Ride, both to avoid changing the User model and because conceptually I'd say that rides are the main objects here.
And yes, adding the field will automatically create the linking table.
what you want is probably something like this
class MyModel(models.Model):
driver = models.ForeignKey(to=User, related_name='r_driver')
# you need to use a related name if you want to link to the same model more than once
passengers = models.ManyToManyField(User, related_name="r_passengers")
I have a model named Exam. each Exam has a set of users called participants. The only way I found to keep such set in Django is to add a field in User model. But I'd prefer to write this model to be as independent as possible so if later I want to use it again I can do it without changing my User model. So How can I handle having such set without manually modifying the User model fields?
Regarding your comment here is what you could do something like this:
class Exam(models.Model):
participants = models.ManyToMany(settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL, through='Participation')
class Participation(models.Model)
user = models.OneToOneField(settings.AUTH_USER_MODEL)
exam = models.ForeignKey('Exam')
active = models.BooleanField(default=False)
Another option would be to use Django's limit_coices_to. It's not transaction-save, but might do the job. You would just limit to choices to all non-related objects.
I'm coming from a Rails background, and am having a bit of trouble making use of the "Association Methods" provided in Django. I have two models (which have been simplified for the sake of brevity), like so:
class User(models.Model):
username = models.CharField(max_length=100, unique=True)
companies = models.ManyToManyField('Company', blank=True)
class Company(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=255)
According to the Django documentation:
"It doesn't matter which model has the ManyToManyField, but you should only put it in one of the models -- not both.".
So I understand that if I have an instance of a User, called user, I can do:
user.companies
My question is how do I do the reverse? How do I get all users that belong to a Company instance, let's say Company:
company.users # This doesn't work!
What's the convention to do this? The documentation that I've read doesn't really cover this. I need the association to work both ways, so I can't simply move it from one model to the other.
company.user_set.all()
will return a QuerySet of User objects that belong to a particular company. By default you use modelname_set to reverse the relationship, but you can override this be providing a related_name as a parameter when defining the model, i.e.
class User(models.Model):
companies = models.ManyToManyField(Company, ..., related_name="users")
> company.users.all()
here is the relevant documentation
I'm finding conflicting information on whether to use OneToOneField(User) or ForeignKey(User, unique=True) when creating a UserProfile model by extending the Django User model.
Is it better to use this?:
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User, unique=True)
or this?:
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
The Django Doc specifies OneToOneField, while the Django Book example uses ForeignKey.
James Bennett also has two Blog posts that providing conflicting examples as well:
Extending the User Model
User Registration
In the former post, Bennett provides some reasons why he switched to using ForeignKey instead of OneToOneField, but I don't quite get it, especially when I see other posts that recommend the opposite.
I'm curious to know your preference and why. Or, does it even matter?
The only real reason given in the article is that it can be set up so that the admin page for User will show both the fields in User and UserProfile. This can be replicated with a OneToOneField with a little elbow grease, so unless you're addicted to showing it in the admin page with no work at the cost of a bit of clarity ("We can create multiple profiles per user?! Oh no, wait, it's set unique.") I'd use OneToOneField.
Besides the admin page inlines, other reason for the ForeignKey solution is that it allows you to use the correct, default DB manager when objects are accessed with a reverse relation. Consider example from this subclasses manager snippet. Let's say that the Post class definition from the example looks like this:
class Post(ParentModel):
title = models.CharField(max_length=50)
onetoone = models.ForeignKey(SomeModel, unique=True)
children = ChildManager()
objects = models.Manager()
By calling somemodel_instance.post_set.all()[0], you get the desired subclasses objects of the Post class as indicated by defining the first (default) manager as a ChildManager. On the other hand, with OneToOneField, by calling somemodel_instance.post you get the Post class instance. You can always call somemodel_instance.post.subclass_object and get the same result, but the default manager could do any other sort of tricks and the FK solutions hides them nicely.
If you own and can modify the custom manager code you can use the use_for_related_fields attribute instead of using FK in place of legitimate 1to1 field, but even that can fail because of some not-known to me nuisances of the automatic managers. As far as I remember it will fail in the above example.
Other reason to generally not use the OneToOneField related to reverse relations: when you use reverse relations defined via OneToOneField you get an model instance, contrary to Manager for ForeignKey reverse relation and as a consequence there's always a DB hit. This is costly if you do some generic stuff on reverse relations (via _meta.get_all_related_objects()) and do not know and care if you will use them all or not.