I have many similar functions in my Django views.py that start off like this:
#login_required
def processMyObject(request, myObjectID, myObjectSlug=None):
logger.info("In processMyObject(myObjectID=%s, myObjectSlug=%s)" % (myObjectID, myObjectSlug))
try:
myObject = MyObject.objects.get(id=myObjectID)
except:
logger.error("Failed to get MyObject Object by ID")
raise "Failed to get MyObject Object by ID"
if myObjectSlug != None and myObject.slug != myObjectSlug:
logger.error("myObjectSlug '%s' doesn't match myObject #%s's slug" % (myObjectSlug, myObject.id))
raise "myObjectSlug '%s' doesn't match myObject #%s's slug" % (myObjectSlug, myObject.id)
Each of these functions has the same argument signature and contains the same chunk of code at the top, but then goes on to do implement some unique functionality. However this is common code in each one of them. It seems like a horrible violation of DRY for me to have typed the same code so many multiple times.
How can I use inheritance or some other technique to elegantly factor out this code so that it only appears once but is used in each of these view functions?
You can write decorator that recieves the MyObjectId and slug from view as parameter. logs the info line and raises an error if object is missing.
Just check information about function decorators and read django code for examples. For example, look up the code for the decorator you are already using (login_required) and look up the user_passes_test decorator in django.contrib.auth.decorators. That is probably the best real example for your case.
And then use the decorator in front of each view that needs it - just like you are using #login_required
Related
I'm a little thrown by this. I have the following code, which works perfectly well:
urlresolvers.reverse('admin:cards_card_change', args=([92]))
To further my understanding, I wanted to try rewriting the line as:
urlresolvers.reverse('admin:cards_card_change', kwargs={'object_id':92})
as seemingly suggested by the documentation on reversing admin views (I'm using Django 1.4).
However, this doesn't seem to match anything at all. Why not? I tried looking in the django source code for answers, but couldn't find the view used for change, so links to the relevant module there would be really helpful as well!
The urlpattern of the change view is in admin/options.py:
url(r'^(.+)/$',
wrap(self.change_view),
name='%s_%s_change' % info),
You could find that it dispatches a request to the change_view method of the ModelAdmin instance. The change_view method also resides in admin/options.py:
def change_view(self, request, object_id, form_url='', extra_context=None):
...
It does accept a parameter object_id.
The reason of the missing match of reverse is that the urlpattern above does not accept named parameter, if you change it to something like
url(r'^(?P<object_id>.+)/$',
wrap(self.change_view),
name='%s_%s_change' % info),
The urlresolvers.reverse('admin:cards_card_change', kwargs={'object_id':92}) should work.
I've no idea whether it was intended to avoid some edge cases or it's just a bug and there's already a ticket fixing this. I'll check it later.
I think this is a python syntax issue.
The thing is that **kwargs cannot be taken as *args.
The function you're trying to call has a first argument (object_id) which is positional and cannot be used as a named argument. (Someone tell me if I'm wrong)
For you, object_id is a positional argument, and thus will be ignored if used in kwargs
If you want your view function to accept object_id also in kwargs, you have to change it with for example
my_id = kwargs.get('object_id', args[0])
In each view of my application I need to have navigation menu prepared. So right now in every view I execute complicated query and store the menu in a dictionary which is passed to a template. In templates the variable in which I have the data is surrounded with "cache", so even though the queries are quite costly, it doesn't bother me.
But I don't want to repeat myself in every view. I guessed that the best place to prepare the menu is in my own context processor. And so I did write one, but I noticed that even when I don't use the data from the context processor, the queries used to prepare the menu are executed. Is there a way to "lazy load" such data from CP or do I have to use "low level" cache in CP? Or maybe there's a better solution to my problem?
Django has a SimpleLazyObject. In Django 1.3, this is used by the auth context processor (source code). This makes user available in the template context for every query, but the user is only accessed when the template contains {{ user }}.
You should be able to do something similar in your context processor.
from django.utils.functional import SimpleLazyObject
def my_context_processor(request):
def complicated_query():
do_stuff()
return result
return {
'result': SimpleLazyObject(complicated_query)
If you pass a callable object into the template context, Django will evaluate it when it is used in the template. This provides one simple way to do laziness — just pass in callables:
def my_context_processor(request):
def complicated_query():
do_stuff()
return result
return {'my_info': complicated_query}
The problem with this is it does not memoize the call — if you use it multiple times in a template, complicated_query gets called multiple times.
The fix is to use something like SimpleLazyObject as in the other answer, or to use something like functools.lru_cache:
from functools import lru_cache:
def my_context_processor(request):
#lru_cache()
def complicated_query():
result = do_stuff()
return result
return {'my_info': complicated_query}
You can now use my_info in your template, and it will be evaluated lazily, just once.
Or, if the function already exists, you would do it like this:
from somewhere import complicated_query
def my_context_processor(request):
return {'my_info': lru_cache()(complicated_query)}
I would prefer this method over SimpleLazyObject because the latter can produce some strange bugs sometimes.
(I was the one who originally implemented LazyObject and SimpleLazyObject, and discovered for myself that there is curse on any code artefact labelled simple.)
I would like to know how to show personalized errors with the get_object_or_404 method. I don't want the normal Http404 pages, but I want to display a custom message with the message: the result is none.
Thanks :)
The get_object_or_404() is essentially a simple 5-line function. Unless you have some specific reason for using it, just do:
try:
instance = YourModel.objects.get(pk=something)
except YourModel.DoesNotExist:
return render_to_response('a_template_with_your_error_message.html')
If for whatever reason you have to use get_object_or_404(), you can try putting it in a try: ... except Http404: ... block, but I honestly can't think of a plausible reason for that.
As stated by michael, when using get_object_or_404 you cannot customize the message given on http 404. The message provided in DEBUG does offer information about the exception however: "No MyModel matches the given query."
Check out the doc on this. There are three arguments: Model, *args, and **kwargs. The last two are used to build an argument for either get() or filter() on the Model.
The reason I wrote, however, is to address the question of why we would want to use a helper function such as get_object_or_404() instead of, for example, catching it with an exception like Model.DoesNotExist.
The later solution couples the view layer to the model layer. In an effort to relax this coupling we can take advantage of the controlled coupling offered in the django.shortcuts module[1].
And why exactly aren't you using your server's capeability to do just that?
get_object_or_404() is redirecting to the default 404 page right?
If you are on debug mode you won't see it but when deployed django will just refer to the server's 404 html page.
That can't be done with that shortcut. It will only raise a Http404 exception. Your best bet is a try catch if you want full control. Eg.
try:
obj = Model.objects.get(pk = foo)
except:
return HttpResponseRedirect('/no/foo/for/you')
#or
return render_to_response ...
I have a custom model manager that looks like this:
class MyManager(models.Manager)
def get_query_set(self):
'''Only get items that are 'approved' and have a `pub_date` that is in
the past. Ignore the rest.'''
queryset = super(MyManager, self).get_query_set()
queryset = queryset.filter(status__in=('a',))
return queryset.filter(pub_date__lte=datetime.utcnow())
And this works well enough; however, I have a problem using Django's generic.list_detail views object_detail and object_list: the queryset seems to be only loading once and, because of this, it isn't fetching the items it should be because, I assume, the utcnow() time has been called only once (when it first loaded).
I assume this is intentional and meant as a performance boost - however, it means that video's show up elsewhere on the site (in places I am not in a object_detail view) before they are available in an object_detail view (see urls.py below). This is leading to 404s ...
Any ideas ? Or do I have to write my own custom views to avoid this ?
Thanks!
urls.py
url(r'^video/(?P<object_id>\d+)$',
list_detail.object_detail,
{ 'queryset': Video.objects.all(), },
name='video_detail',
),
It is not a problem of cache: as you do it now, the queryset definition is evaluated once, while parsing urls, and then, it is never evaluated again.
Solution is actually pretty simple and described in the online documentation: Complex filtering with wrapper functions: just create a small custom view, that will simply call the generic view.
I am actually using a similar solution quite a lot and I feel it quite comfortable.
By the way, a small side note, for this case I would suggest not using a custom manager, and go back instead on a normal filtering.
Try correcting urls.py to:
url(r'^video/(?P<object_id>\d+)$',
list_detail.object_detail,
{ 'queryset': Video.objects.all, }, # here's the difference
name='video_detail',
)
Edit:
If this fail, try apply similar technique(passing callable instead of calling it) to filter():
return queryset.filter(pub_date__lte=datetime.utcnow)
I have an almost identical model Manager to thornomad, and the same problem with generic views.
I have to point out that neither of the suggestions above work:
doing Video.objects.all without parentheses gives an error
doing queryset.filter(pub_date__lte=datetime.utcnow), again without the parentheses, does not give an error but does not fix the problem
I have also tried another way, which is to use a lambda to return the queryset, eg:
qs = lambda *x: Video.objects.all()
url(r'^video/(?P<object_id>\d+)$',
list_detail.object_detail,
{ 'queryset': qs(), },
name='video_detail',
),
...it didn't work either and I can see now I must have been desperate to think it would :)
lazy_qs = lambda *x: lazy(Post.live_objects.all, QuerySet)
blog_posts = {
'queryset': lazy_qs(),
...doesn't work either (gives an error) as utils.functional.lazy doesn't know how to convert the result to a QuerySet properly, as best I can tell.
I think Roberto's answer of wrapping the generic view is the only one that will help.
The django docs should be amended to point out the limitations of the queryset used by generic views (currently the docs have a special note to tell you everything will be okay!)
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
We just now started doing the A/B testing for our Django based project. Can I get some information on best practices or useful insights about this A/B testing.
Ideally each new testing page will be differentiated with a single parameter(just like Gmail). mysite.com/?ui=2 should give a different page. So for every view I need to write a decorator to load different templates based on the 'ui' parameter value. And I dont want to hard code any template names in decorators. So how would urls.py url pattern will be?
It's useful to take a step back and abstract what A/B testing is trying to do before diving into the code. What exactly will we need to conduct a test?
A Goal that has a Condition
At least two distinct Paths to meet the Goal's Condition
A system for sending viewers down one of the Paths
A system for recording the Results of the test
With this in mind let's think about implementation.
The Goal
When we think about a Goal on the web usually we mean that a user reaches a certain page or that they complete a specific action, for example successfully registering as a user or getting to the checkout page.
In Django we could model that in a couple of ways - perhaps naively inside a view, calling a function whenever a Goal has been reached:
def checkout(request):
a_b_goal_complete(request)
...
But that doesn't help because we'll have to add that code everywhere we need it - plus if we're using any pluggable apps we'd prefer not to edit their code to add our A/B test.
How can we introduce A/B Goals without directly editing view code? What about a Middleware?
class ABMiddleware:
def process_request(self, request):
if a_b_goal_conditions_met(request):
a_b_goal_complete(request)
That would allow us to track A/B Goals anywhere on the site.
How do we know that a Goal's conditions has been met? For ease of implementation I'll suggest that we know a Goal has had it's conditions met when a user reaches a specific URL path. As a bonus we can measure this without getting our hands dirty inside a view. To go back to our example of registering a user we could say that this goal has been met when the user reaches the URL path:
/registration/complete
So we define a_b_goal_conditions_met:
a_b_goal_conditions_met(request):
return request.path == "/registration/complete":
Paths
When thinking about Paths in Django it's natural to jump to the idea of using different templates. Whether there is another way remains to be explored. In A/B testing you make small differences between two pages and measure the results. Therefore it should be a best practice to define a single base Path template from which all Paths to the Goal should extend.
How should render these templates? A decorator is probably a good start - it's a best practice in Django to include a parameter template_name to your views a decorator could alter this parameter at runtime.
#a_b
def registration(request, extra_context=None, template_name="reg/reg.html"):
...
You could see this decorator either introspecting the wrapped function and modifying the template_name argument or looking up the correct templates from somewhere (like a Model). If we didn't want to add the decorator to every function we could implement this as part of our ABMiddleware:
class ABMiddleware:
...
def process_view(self, request, view_func, view_args, view_kwargs):
if should_do_a_b_test(...) and "template_name" in view_kwargs:
# Modify the template name to one of our Path templates
view_kwargs["template_name"] = get_a_b_path_for_view(view_func)
response = view_func(view_args, view_kwargs)
return response
We'd need also need to add some way to keep track of which views have A/B tests running etc.
A system for sending viewers down a Path
In theory this is easy but there are lot of different implementations so it's not clear which one is best. We know a good system should divide users evenly down the path - Some hash method must be used - Maybe you could use the modulus of memcache counter divided by the number of Paths - maybe there is a better way.
A system for recording the Results of the Test
We need to record how many users went down what Path - we'll also need access to this information when the user reaches the goal (we need to be able to say what Path they came down to met the Condition of the Goal) - we'll use some kind of Model(s) to record the data and either Django Sessions or Cookies to persist the Path information until the user meets the Goal condition.
Closing Thoughts
I've given a lot of pseudo code for implementing A/B testing in Django - the above is by no means a complete solution but a good start towards creating a reusable framework for A/B testing in Django.
For reference you may want to look at Paul Mar's Seven Minute A/Bs on GitHub - it's the ROR version of the above!
http://github.com/paulmars/seven_minute_abs/tree/master
Update
On further reflection and investigation of Google Website Optimizer it's apparent that there are gaping holes in the above logic. By using different templates to represent Paths you break all caching on the view (or if the view is cached it will always serve the same path!). Instead, of using Paths, I would instead steal GWO terminology and use the idea of Combinations - that is one specific part of a template changing - for instance, changing the <h1> tag of a site.
The solution would involve template tags which would render down to JavaScript. When the page is loaded in the browser the JavaScript makes a request to your server which fetches one of the possible Combinations.
This way you can test multiple combinations per page while preserving caching!
Update
There still is room for template switching - say for example you introduce an entirely new homepage and want to test it's performance against the old homepage - you'd still want to use the template switching technique. The thing to keep in mind is your going to have to figure out some way to switch between X number of cached versions of the page. To do this you'd need to override the standard cached middleware to see if their is a A/B test running on the requested URL. Then it could choose the correct cached version to show!!!
Update
Using the ideas described above I've implemented a pluggable app for basic A/B testing Django. You can get it off Github:
http://github.com/johnboxall/django-ab/tree/master
If you use the GET parameters like you suggsted (?ui=2), then you shouldn't have to touch urls.py at all. Your decorator can inspect request.GET['ui'] and find what it needs.
To avoid hardcoding template names, maybe you could wrap the return value from the view function? Instead of returning the output of render_to_response, you could return a tuple of (template_name, context) and let the decorator mangle the template name. How about something like this? WARNING: I haven't tested this code
def ab_test(view):
def wrapped_view(request, *args, **kwargs):
template_name, context = view(request, *args, **kwargs)
if 'ui' in request.GET:
template_name = '%s_%s' % (template_name, request.GET['ui'])
# ie, 'folder/template.html' becomes 'folder/template.html_2'
return render_to_response(template_name, context)
return wrapped_view
This is a really basic example, but I hope it gets the idea across. You could modify several other things about the response, such as adding information to the template context. You could use those context variables to integrate with your site analytics, like Google Analytics, for example.
As a bonus, you could refactor this decorator in the future if you decide to stop using GET parameters and move to something based on cookies, etc.
Update If you already have a lot of views written, and you don't want to modify them all, you could write your own version of render_to_response.
def render_to_response(template_list, dictionary, context_instance, mimetype):
return (template_list, dictionary, context_instance, mimetype)
def ab_test(view):
from django.shortcuts import render_to_response as old_render_to_response
def wrapped_view(request, *args, **kwargs):
template_name, context, context_instance, mimetype = view(request, *args, **kwargs)
if 'ui' in request.GET:
template_name = '%s_%s' % (template_name, request.GET['ui'])
# ie, 'folder/template.html' becomes 'folder/template.html_2'
return old_render_to_response(template_name, context, context_instance=context_instance, mimetype=mimetype)
return wrapped_view
#ab_test
def my_legacy_view(request, param):
return render_to_response('mytemplate.html', {'param': param})
Justin's response is right... I recommend you vote for that one, as he was first. His approach is particularly useful if you have multiple views that need this A/B adjustment.
Note, however, that you don't need a decorator, or alterations to urls.py, if you have just a handful of views. If you left your urls.py file as is...
(r'^foo/', my.view.here),
... you can use request.GET to determine the view variant requested:
def here(request):
variant = request.GET.get('ui', some_default)
If you want to avoid hardcoding template names for the individual A/B/C/etc views, just make them a convention in your template naming scheme (as Justin's approach also recommends):
def here(request):
variant = request.GET.get('ui', some_default)
template_name = 'heretemplates/page%s.html' % variant
try:
return render_to_response(template_name)
except TemplateDoesNotExist:
return render_to_response('oops.html')
A code based on the one by Justin Voss:
def ab_test(force = None):
def _ab_test(view):
def wrapped_view(request, *args, **kwargs):
request, template_name, cont = view(request, *args, **kwargs)
if 'ui' in request.GET:
request.session['ui'] = request.GET['ui']
if 'ui' in request.session:
cont['ui'] = request.session['ui']
else:
if force is None:
cont['ui'] = '0'
else:
return redirect_to(request, force)
return direct_to_template(request, template_name, extra_context = cont)
return wrapped_view
return _ab_test
example function using the code:
#ab_test()
def index1(request):
return (request,'website/index.html', locals())
#ab_test('?ui=33')
def index2(request):
return (request,'website/index.html', locals())
What happens here:
1. The passed UI parameter is stored in the session variable
2. The same template loads every time, but a context variable {{ui}} stores the UI id (you can use it to modify the template)
3. If user enters the page without ?ui=xx then in case of index2 he's redirected to '?ui=33', in case of index1 the UI variable is set to 0.
I use 3 to redirect from the main page to Google Website Optimizer which in turn redirects back to the main page with a proper ?ui parameter.
You can also A/B test using Google Optimize. To do so you'll have to add Google Analytics to your site and then when you create a Google Optimize experiment each user will get a cookie with a different experiment variant (according to the weight for each variant). You can then extract the variant from the cookie and display various versions of your application. You can use the following snippet to extract the variant:
ga_exp = self.request.COOKIES.get("_gaexp")
parts = ga_exp.split(".")
experiments_part = ".".join(parts[2:])
experiments = experiments_part.split("!")
for experiment_str in experiments:
experiment_parts = experiment_str.split(".")
experiment_id = experiment_parts[0]
variation_id = int(experiment_parts[2])
experiment_variations[experiment_id] = variation_id
However there is a django package that integrates well with Google Optimize: https://github.com/adinhodovic/django-google-optimize/.
And here is a blog post on how to use the package and how Google Optimize works: https://hodovi.cc/blog/django-b-testing-google-optimize/.