I want to change properties from related models of a certain model, but I don't want to save them, I just want to change them temporarily.
Take for example these models:
class Duck(models.Model):
name = models.StringField()
class Duckling(models.Model):
name = models.StringField()
parent = models.ForeignKey(Duck, related_name='children')
Now assume there is some data in the database, then when you try this:
for duckling in some_duck.children.all():
duckling.name = 'test-to-change-name'
for duckling in some_duck.children.all():
print(duckling.name)
In the second for loop it will print the original names and not the names we set in the first for loop. If you would save() them in the first for loop, it would work, but I want to change their names temporarily, just for this process.
Does anyone have an idea if this might be possible somehow? I was thinking of maybe overwriting some_duck.children, but then I would need to create a RelatedManager object myself, which is kind of weird and probably hacky. I hope there are better ways.
Edit: I want it to be updated on the some_duck object, so that when you access some_duck.children that you get the updated data over there.
How about converting the children queryset to a list?
children = list(some_duck.children.all())
for duckling in children:
duckling.name = 'test-to-change-name'
for duckling in children:
print(duckling.name)
Related
I've got django 1.8.5 and Python 3.4.3, and trying to create a subquery that constrains my main data set - but the subquery itself (I think) needs a join in it. Or maybe there is a better way to do it.
Here's a trimmed down set of models:
class Lot(models.Model):
lot_id = models.CharField(max_length=200, unique=True)
class Lot_Country(models.Model):
lot = models.ForeignKey(Lot)
country = CountryField()
class Discrete(models.Model):
discrete_id = models.CharField(max_length=200, unique=True)
master_id = models.ForeignKey(Inventory_Master)
location = models.ForeignKey(Location)
lot = models.ForeignKey(Lot)
I am filtering on various attributes of Discrete (which is discrete supply) and I want to go "up" through Lot, over the Lot_Country, meaning "I only want to get rows from Discrete if the Lot associated with that row has an entry in Lot_Country for my appropriate country (let's say US.)
I've tried something like this:
oklots=list(Lot_Country.objects.filter(country='US'))
But, first of all that gives me the str back, which I don't really want (and changed it to be lot_id, but that's a hack.)
What's the best way to constrain Discrete through Lot and over to Lot_Country? In SQL I would just join in the subquery (or even in the main query - maybe that's what I need? I guess I don't know how to join up to a parent then down into that parent's other child...)
Thanks in advance for your help.
I'm not sure what you mean by "it gives me the str back"... Lot_Country.objects.filter(country='US') will return a queryset. Of course if you print it in your console, you will see a string.
I also think your models need refactoring. The way you have currently defined it, you can associate multiple Lot_Countrys with one Lot, and a country can only be associated with one lot.
If I understand your general model correctly that isn't what you want - you want to associate multiple Lots with one Lot_Country. To do that you need to reverse your foreign key relationship (i.e., put it inside the Lot).
Then, for fetching all the Discrete lots that are in a given country, you would do:
discretes_in_us = Discrete.objects.filter(lot__lot_country__country='US')
Which will give you a queryset of all Discretes whose Lot is in the US.
I am trying to display a map of my data based on a search. The easiest way to handle the map display would be to serialized the queryset generated by the search, and indeed this works just fine using . However, I'd really like to allow for multiple searches, with the displayed points being shown in a user chosen color. The user chosen color, obviously cannot come from the database, since it is not a property of these objects, so none of the aggregators make sense here.
I have tried simply making a utility class, since what I really need is a somewhat complex join between two model classes that then gets serialized into geojson. However, once I created that utility class, it became evident that I lost a lot of the benefits of having a queryset, especially the ability to easily serialize the data with django-geojson (or natively once I can get 1.8 to run smoothly).
Basically, I want to be able to do something like:
querySet = datumClass.objects.filter(...user submitted search parameters...).annotate(color='blue')
Is this possible at all? It seems like this would be more elegant and would work better than my current solution of a non-model utility class which has some serious serialization issues when I try to use python-geojson to serialize.
The problem is that extra comes with all sorts of warning about usefulness or deprecation... But this works:
.extra(select={'color': "'blue'"})
Notice the double quotes wrapping the string value.
This translates to:
SELECT ('blue') AS "color"
Not quite sure what you are trying to achieve, but you can add extra attributes to your objects iterating over the queryset in the view. These can be accessed from the template.
for object in queryset :
if object.contition = 'a'
object.color = 'blue'
else:
object.color = 'green'
if you have a dictionary that maps fields to values, you can do things like
filter_dictionary = {
'date__lte' : '2014-03-01'
}
qs = DatumClass.objects.filter(**filter_dictionary)
And qs would have all dates less than that date (if it has a date field). So, as a user, I could submit any key, value pairs that you could place in your dictionary.
I have an import of objects where I want to check against the database if it has already been imported earlier, if it has I will update it, if not I will create a new one. But what is the best way of doing this.
Right now I have this:
old_books = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import")
for book in new_books:
try:
old_book = old_books.get(id=book.id):
#update book
except:
#create book
But that creates a database call for each book in new_books. So I am looking for a way where it will only make one call to the database, and then just fetch objects from that queryset.
Ps: not looking for a get_or_create kind of thing as the update and create functions are more complex than that :)
--- EDIT---
I guess I haven't been good enough in my explanation, as the answers does not reflect what the problem is. So to make it more clear (I hope):
I want to pick out a single object from a queryset, based on an id of that object. I want the full object so I can update it and save it with it's changed values. So lets say I have a queryset with 3 objects, A and B and C. Then I want a way to ask if the queryset has object B and if it has then get it, without an extra database call.
Assuming new_books is another queryset of Book you can try filter on id of it as
old_books = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import").filter(id__in=[b.id for b in new_books])
With this old_books has books that are already created.
You can use the values_list('id', flat=True) to get all ids in a single DB call (is much faster than querysets). Then you can use sets to find the intersections.
new_book_ids = new_books.values_list('id', flat=True)
old_book_ids = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import") \
.values_list('id', flat=True)
to_update_ids = set(new_book_ids) & set(old_book_ids)
to_create_ids = set(new_book_ids) - to_update_ids
-- EDIT (to include the updated part) --
I guess the problem you are facing is in bulk updating rather than bulk fetch.
If the updates are simple, then something like this might work:
old_book_ids = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import") \
.values_list('id', flat=True)
to_update = []
to_create = []
for book in new_books:
if book.id in old_book_ids:
# list of books to update
# to_update.append(book.id)
else:
# create a book object
# Book(**details)
# Update books
Book.objects.filter(id__in=to_update).update(field='new_value')
Book.objects.bulk_create(to_create)
But if the updates are complex (update fields are dependent upon related fields), then you can check insert... on duplicated key update option in MySQL and its custom manager for Django.
Please leave a comment if the above is completely off the track.
You'll have to do more than one query. You need two groups of objects, you can't fetch them both and split them up at the same time arbitrarily like that. There's no bulk_get_or_create method.
However, the example code you've given will do a query for every object which really isn't very efficient (or djangoic for that matter). Instead, use the __in clause to create smart subqueries, and then you can limit database hits to only two queries:
old_to_update = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import", pk__in=new_books)
old_to_create = Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import").exclude(pk__in=new_books)
Django is smart enough to know how to use that new_books queryset in that context (it can also be a regular list of ids)
update
Queryset objects are just a sort of list of objects. So all you need to do now is loop over the objects:
for book in old_to_update:
#update book
for book in old_to_create:
#create book
At this point, when it's fetching the books from the QuerySet, not from the databse, which is a lot more efficient than using .get() for each and every one of them - and you get the same result. each iteration you get to work with an object, the same as if you got it from a direct .get() call.
The best solution I have found is using the python next() function.
First evaluate the queryset into a set and then pick the book you need with next:
old_books = set(Book.objects.filter(foreign_source="import"))
old_book = next((book for book in existing_books if book.id == new_book.id), None )
That way the database is not queried everytime you need to get a specific book from the queryset. And then you can just do:
if old_book:
#update book
old_book.save()
else:
#create new book
In Django 1.7 there is an update_or_create() method that might solve this problem in a better way: https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/querysets/#django.db.models.query.QuerySet.update_or_create
So first off, I want to clarify that I am trying to make One-To-Many relationships, not Many-to-One. I already understand how ForeignKeys work.
For the sake of the discussion, I've simplified my models; they're much more field-rich than this in the real implementation.
I have a model, called a ColumnDefinition:
class ColumnDefinition(Model):
column_name = CharField(max_length=32)
column_type = PositiveSmallIntegerField()
column_size = PositiveSmallIntegerField(null=True, blank=True)
I think have a registry. Each registry has a separate set of columns for it's input and output definition. I've put the theoretical "OneToManyField" in there to demonstrate what I'm trying to do.
class Registry(Model):
input_dictionary = OneToManyField(ColumnDefinition)
output_dictionary = OneToManyField(ColumnDefinition)
created_date = DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True, editable=False)
A ColumnDefinition is only ever related to one Registry ever. So it's not a Many to Many relationship. If I put a ForeignKey on the ColumnDefinition instead to create a reverse relationship, it can only create a single reverse, whereas I need both an input and output reverse.
I don't want to have to do anything kludgey like adding a "column_registry_type" field onto ColumnDefinition if I can get around it.
Does anyone have any good ideas on how to solve this problem?
Thanks!
You can add two ForeignKeys on ColumnDefinition, one for input and one for output, and give them separate related_names:
class ColumnDefinition(Model):
...
input_registry = models.ForeignKey(Registry, related_name='input_columns')
output_registry = models.ForeignKey(Registry, related_name='output_columns')
You can then access the set of columns like registry.input_columns.
You can and should define two different ForeignKey fields on ColumnDefinition. Just make sure to specify a related_name value for at least one of them.
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/models/fields/#django.db.models.ForeignKey.related_name
I have something like this in models.py
class ZipCode(models.Model):
zip = models.CharField(max_length=20)
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
class City(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
slug = models.CharField(max_length=50)
state = models.ForeignKey(State)
zip = models.ManyToManyField(ZipCode)
When I do this I get:
NameError: name 'City' is not defined
Is this because the order of declaration matters? And if so, how can I do this, because either way I arrange this, it looks like I'm going to get a NameError.
Thanks.
Apart from order issues, this is wrong:
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
It is not inside a method, so "self" will also be undefined. It is executed only once, at class-creation time (i.e. when the module is first imported), so the attribute created would be a class attribute and have the same value for all instances. What you might be looking for is this:
#property
def cities(self):
return City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
Because this is inside a method, which is not executed until it's accessed, ordering issues will no longer be a problem. As ozan points out, this is a duplication of what Django reverse relations already give you for free:
a_zip_code.city_set.all()
And you can use related_name to call it what you like:
zip = models.ManyToManyField(ZipCode, related_name='cities')
...
a_zip_code.cities.all()
So I don't think the ordering issue you originally asked about is even relevant to your situation. When it is, others have already pointed out using quoted strings in ForeignKey and ManyToManyField declarations to get around it.
When you have references to classes defined after, you can use this trick:
attribute = models.ForeignKey('ClassDefinedAfterThis')
Yes order does matter as others have noted.
Though, encountering this issue is almost always going to be an indication that you're doing something wrong.
In this case your declaration:
cities = City.objects.filter(zip=self).distinct()
... is both redundant and bad practice. You can find the cities related to a zip code by referring to that zip code's city_set in your views (ie not in your model!). So if zip is an instance of ZipCode, you would do:
cities = zip.city_set.all()
If you really want to call it 'cities' rather than 'city_set' you can use the related_name parameter in your m2m declaration.
I was once worried about order... because I thought my models below could only reference models above. But then realized that you can just do a
models.ForeignKey('appName.modelName')
and all was fine.
Yes, order does matter, but your example does not look right to me. I think you should just be using a foreign key for your many-to-one relationship:
cities = models.ForeignKey(City)
This has the details on many-to-one relationships with django models.
Edit:
It was pointed out to me in the comments that cities in Europe might have several cities in the same zip code. If you are looking for a many-to-many relationship here, you should use:
cities = models.ManyToManyField(City)
This is described in Django's documentation. The point is, this is either of these examples are much more clear than what is used in the example.
Order matters in Python. This thread may be relevant to your question. Also for your uses, you may want to use a unique foreign key in the ZIP code class.