Is there a way to change a element of collection in Mongoose and be cascade changed in other collection that points this element, similar to using MySQLs foreign keys?
For example, in MySQL I'd assign a foreign key and set it to cascade on change or delete. Thus, if I were to delete or change name of a activity_Type, all applications and associated activity_Types would be removed or affected as well.
class ValuesHelper(object):
NAME = 'activityType'
def __init__(self, neo_on=False):
self.client = MongoClient(settings.DATABASES['mongo']['HOST'],settings.DATABASES['mongo']['PORT'])
self.db = self.client[settings.DATABASES['mongo']['NAME']]
Unfortunately, there is no support for cascade changes at the moment.
(Take a look at this jira ticket)
So you need to implement that behavior in your application. For example, if you were using Mongoose, you can do it using its remove Middleware. Take a look at JohnnyHK's answer from another SO question for an example.
Related
// don't delete database entries but set the newly added attribute deletedAt
// to the current date (when deletion was done). paranoid will only work if
// timestamps are enabled
paranoid: true,
I used Sequelize.js ORM, and there was option paranoid like above description. (from Sequelize.js tutorial docs)
I want to make my Django Model paranoid.
I googled with keywords like "django paranoid", but i couldn't find informations. What is a general name for the option "paranoid" and how can i make my django model act like the option?
Or should I make mixins or middlewares to make paranoid?
of course, you can use django-paranoid
this library will add deleted_at, updated_at and created_at field, also a soft delete method.
You only need extend to model with ParanoidModel.
For see the deleted object you can use objects_with_deleted:
MyModel.objects_with_deleted.last()
and if do you want do hard delete an object you only should use True param:
m = MyModel.objects.last()
m.delete(True)
Consider the following scenario:
Our Django database objects must rely on IDs that are provided by external service A (ESA) - this is because we use this ID to pull the information about objects that aren't created yet from the external directly. ESA might shut down soon, so we also pull information about the same objects from external service B (ESB), and save them as a fallback.
Because these IDs are relied on heavily in views and URLs, the ideal scenario would be to use a #property:
#property
dynamic_id = ESA_id
And then, if ESA shuts down, we can switch easily by changing dynamic_id to ESB_id. The problem with this though, is that properties cannot be used in queryset filters and various other scenarios, which is also a must in this case.
My current thought is to just save ESA_id, ESB_id, and dynamic_ID as regular fields separately and assign dynamic_ID = ESA_id, and then, in case ESA shuts down, simply go over the objects and do dynamic_ID = ESB_id.
But I feel there must be a better way?
Having ESA_id and ESB_id fields in the same table is a good solution, then you have some kind of setting (DEFAULT_SERVICE_ID='ESA_id'|'ESB_id') and your code change the lookup based on this option.
Here you can see an aproach to create filters dynamicly
https://stackoverflow.com/a/310785/1448667
I'm working on an events site and have a one to many relationship between a production and its performances, when I have a performance object if I need its production id at the moment I have to do
$productionId = $performance->getProduction()->getId();
In cases when I literally just need the production id it seems like a waste to send off another database query to get a value that's already in the object somewhere.
Is there a way round this?
Edit 2013.02.17:
What I wrote below is no longer true. You don't have to do anything in the scenario outlined in the question, because Doctrine is clever enough to load the id fields into related entities, so the proxy objects will already contain the id, and it will not issue another call to the database.
Outdated answer below:
It is possible, but it is unadvised.
The reason behind that, is Doctrine tries to truly adhere to the principle that your entities should form an object graph, where the foreign keys have no place, because they are just "artifacts", that come from the way relational databases work.
You should rewrite the association to be
eager loaded, if you always need the related entity
write a DQL query (preferably on a Repository) to fetch-join the related entity
let it lazy-load the related entity by calling a getter on it
If you are not convinced, and really want to avoid all of the above, there are two ways (that I know of), to get the id of a related object, without triggering a load, and without resorting to tricks like reflection and serialization:
If you already have the object in hand, you can retrieve the inner UnitOfWork object that Doctrine uses internally, and use it's getEntityIdentifier() method, passing it the unloaded entity (the proxy object). It will return you the id, without triggering the lazy-load.
Assuming you have many-to-one relation, with multiple articles belonging to a category:
$articleId = 1;
$article = $em->find('Article', $articleId);
$categoryId = $em->getUnitOfWork()->getEntityIdentifier($article->getCategory());
Coming 2.2, you will be able to use the IDENTITY DQL function, to select just a foreign key, like this:
SELECT IDENTITY(u.Group) AS group_id FROM User u WHERE u.id = ?0
It is already committed to the development versions.
Still, you should really try to stick to one of the "correct" methods.
I have made a django app that creates models and database tables on the fly. This is, as far as I can tell, the only viable way of doing what I need. The problem arises of how to pass a dynamically created model between pages.
I can think of a few ways of doing such but they all sound horrible. The methods I can think of are:
Use global variables within views.py. This seems like a horrible hack and likely to cause conflicts if there are multiple simultaneous users.
Pass a reference in the URL and use some eval hackery to try and refind the model. This is probably stupid as the model could potentially be garbage collected en route.
Use a place-holder app. This seems like a bad idea due to conflicts between multiple users.
Having an invisible form that posts the model when a link is clicked. Again very hacky.
Is there a good way of doing this, and if not, is one of these methods more viable than the others?
P.S. In case it helps my app receives data (as a json string) from a pre-existing database, and then caches it locally (i.e. on the webserver) creating an appropriate model and table on the fly. The idea is then to present this data and do various filtering and drill downs on it with-out placing undue strain on the main database (as each query returns a few hundred results out of a database of hundreds of millions of data points.) W.R.T. 3, the tables are named based on a hash of the query and time stamp, however a place-holder app would have a predetermined name.
Thanks,
jhoyla
EDITED TO ADD: Thanks guys, I have now solved this problem. I ended up using both answers together to give a complete answer. As I can only accept one I am going to accept the contenttypes one, sadly I don't have the reputation to give upvotes yet, however if/when I ever do I will endeavor to return and upvote appropriately.
The solution in it's totality,
from django.contrib.contenttypes.models import ContentType
view_a(request):
model = create_model(...)
request.session['model'] = ContentType.objects.get_for_model(model)
...
view_b(request):
ctmodel = request.session.get('model', None)
if not ctmodel:
return Http404
model = ctmodel.model_class()
...
My first thought would be to use content types and to pass the type/model information via the url.
You could also use Django's sessions framework, e.g.
def view_a(request):
your_model = request.session.get('your_model', None)
if type(your_model) == YourModel
your_model.name = 'something_else'
request.session['your_model'] = your_model
...
def view_b(request):
your_model = request.session.get('your_model', None)
...
You can store almost anything in the session dictionary, and managing it is also easy:
del request.session['your_model']
I am subclassing an existing model. I want many of the members of the parent class to now, instead, be members of the child class.
For example, I have a model Swallow. Now, I am making EuropeanSwallow(Swallow) and AfricanSwallow(Swallow). I want to take some but not all Swallow objects make them either EuropeanSwallow or AfricanSwallow, depending on whether they are migratory.
How can I move them?
It's a bit of a hack, but this works:
swallow = Swallow.objects.get(id=1)
swallow.__class__ = AfricanSwallow
# set any required AfricanSwallow fields here
swallow.save()
I know this is much later, but I needed to do something similar and couldn't find much. I found the answer buried in some source code here, but also wrote an example class-method that would suffice.
class AfricanSwallow(Swallow):
#classmethod
def save_child_from_parent(cls, swallow, new_attrs):
"""
Inputs:
- swallow: instance of Swallow we want to create into AfricanSwallow
- new_attrs: dictionary of new attributes for AfricanSwallow
Adapted from:
https://github.com/lsaffre/lino/blob/master/lino/utils/mti.py
"""
parent_link_field = AfricanSwallow._meta.parents.get(swallow.__class__, None)
new_attrs[parent_link_field.name] = swallow
for field in swallow._meta.fields:
new_attrs[field.name] = getattr(swallow, field.name)
s = AfricanSwallow(**new_attrs)
s.save()
return s
I couldn't figure out how to get my form validation to work with this method however; so it certainly could be improved more; probably means a database refactoring might be the best long-term solution...
Depends on what kind of model inheritance you'll use. See
http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/db/models/#model-inheritance
for the three classic kinds. Since it sounds like you want Swallow objects that rules out Abstract Base Class.
If you want to store different information in the db for Swallow vs AfricanSwallow vs EuropeanSwallow, then you'll want to use MTI. The biggest problem with MTI as the official django model recommends is that polymorphism doesn't work properly. That is, if you fetch a Swallow object from the DB which is actually an AfricanSwallow object, you won't get an instance o AfricanSwallow. (See this question.) Something like django-model-utils InheritanceManager can help overcome that.
If you have actual data you need to preserve through this change, use South migrations. Make two migrations -- first one that changes the schema and another that copies the appropriate objects' data into subclasses.
I suggest using django-model-utils's InheritanceCastModel. This is one implementation I like. You can find many more in djangosnippets and some blogs, but after going trough them all I chose this one. Hope it helps.
Another (outdated) approach: If you don't mind keeping parent's id you can just create brand new child instances from parent's attrs. This is what I did:
ids = [s.pk for s in Swallow.objects.all()]
# I get ids list to avoid memory leak with long lists
for i in ids:
p = Swallow.objects.get(pk=i)
c = AfricanSwallow(att1=p.att1, att2=p.att2.....)
p.delete()
c.save()
Once this runs, a new AfricanSwallow instance will be created replacing each initial Swallow instance
Maybe this will help someone :)