I am trying to extend the fields in django-reg (with First name, last name and contact number). To this end, I have written an app (name=regfields), with the following contents:
http://dpaste.com/596163/
When I run syncdb, I see all the extra fields I have set up on the database, but, when I try and create an account, the extra fields I have given are not stored in my database.
What could be wrong?
Sorry, I am a django 101 user!
The indentation of the save() function in newforms.py looks off. Assuming that is not an error introduced by copying it into dpaste, that method is not a part of RegistrationFormZ.
Related
I have a model that have a URLField field and I need to make a migration that turns this field into a foreign key, where the string is a unique field of the other object, and, if the object does not exist create it.
for example, turn this:
class Event_UserVisit(Event_Base):
dest_url = models.URLField(max_length=1000)
into this:
class Event_UserVisit(Event_Base):
dest_url = models.ForeignKey(Page)
I've never done a manual migration like this and didn't find any tutorial or instructions to do something like this.
obviously doing a naive migration return errors like this:
django.db.utils.ProgrammingError: column "source_url_id" cannot be cast automatically to type integer
what's the best approach to do it?
note: I need to do this on a production db with lots of data, so I can't have long down time and can't lose any data.
thanks! :)
I don't think you can do this at the ORM level in one go (unless someone corrects me) You would need create a new FK maybe dest_url2 run migrations, then write a script to migrate the data. Next,delete dest_url again run migrations. Then rename dest_url2 to dest_url Django will detect the name change here.
However, I don't understand why you are linking an FK ID on page to a field called dest_url. A PK in Page should not be a 1000 max URL! It has no order and would make indexing hard and slow down your app. It would make more sense do have...
class Event_UserVisit(Event_Base):
page = models.ForeignKey(Page, related_name='eventvisits')
The I assume Page looks something like this...
class Page(models.Model):
dest_url = models.URLField(max_length=1000)
I am doing a migration that adds a referral code to my custom user model. The field I've added looks like this:
refer_code = models.CharField(max_length=10, default=UUID_10)
In my datamigration I've added the following:
for u in orm['app.User'].objects.all():
u.refer_code = UUID_10()
print u.name + ': ' + u.refer_code
u.save()
However, when I perform the migrations, all of my users have the same code. Different codes for each user are spat out from the print command, so it's not a problem with my function.
Weirdly, if I roll the datamigration back (it has no backwards method) as well as the previous migration that added the field, and re-apply them, not only does every model have the same data in, it exactly has the same data in as before.
There are other parts of the datamigration (adding objects to the database with get_or_create) that are working fine.
What on earth is going on?
I think your function was called rather than new field was created. So try to do two migrations. First add new field with default value. And second fill that field.
So I'm new to Django...
First some background on how we do things now. We have a custom php system but I am constructing an improved inventory management system in django using only the admin interface. We store part numbers, and it is essential that we do not store duplicates. Part numbers can sometimes be entered with hypens, periods, spaces, etc. We need to be sure that duplicate parts are not added no matter what kind of formatting is entered. With our existing non-django system, we use a regex to strip anything from the string that is not a-zA-Z0-9. The actual entered part number is persisted, and the cleaned number is persisted to the db as well. Then when someone is adding a new part or even searching for a part, this cleaned version of the part number helps to avoid this ambiguity. We do the same for the manufacturer name.
My way of emulating this in django was to add the part_number_clean field along with the part_number field to the model. Then I overrode the save method to calculate the clean part number like so (manufacturer as well):
def save(self, *args, **kwargs):
self.manufacturer_clean = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9]', '', self.manufacturer).lower()
self.part_number_clean = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9]', '', self.part_number).lower()
super(CatalogProduct, self).save(*args, **kwargs)
The problem is, I need to unique on a combination of part number and manufacturer:
class Meta:
unique_together = ('part_number_clean ', 'manufacturer_clean ')
When I try to save a duplicate record, I get a database integrity violation. So it seems like django is evaluating the unique fields before the save function is called (which makes sense). I just need to know how or which method I should override to calculate these fields BEFORE any validation.
Additionally, I am interested in adding a third field to the unique_together mix that may or may not be filled out. If it is not filled it will just have an empty default value. I hope this will not cause any issues.
It would also be great if when the user tabbed-out of the manufacturer and part number fields, and both were not empty, some js would see if that product exists already, and offer the user the option to click a button and be whisked away to that record, before they waste their time filling out the rest of the data only to find that it already exists. I'm guessing this lies way outside the realm of the admin interface without serious hacking. Is there any way to somehow integrate this with the admin interface? Its working great for me up till now...
I figured it out. I'm posting the answer for anyone else that is curious. This was actually very simple in the end to implement in the model. All one needs to do is implement (override?) the clean() method of the model. In the method, I calculate and set my special fields, then be sure to call self.validate_unique() after. Works like a charm! No need to raise any exceptions, the form will display the error on top perfectly. Doing this in the save method will not work, as the exception cannot be thrown by your code or django at that point. Here is the code:
class CatalogProduct(models.Model):
manufacturer = models.CharField(max_length=100)
manufacturer_clean = models.CharField('Manufacturer',max_length=100,blank=True,editable=False)
part_number = models.CharField(max_length=100)
part_number_clean = models.CharField('Part number',max_length=100,blank=True,editable=False)
def clean(self):
# Calculate manufacturer_clean and part_number_clean
self.manufacturer_clean = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9]', '', self.manufacturer).lower()
self.part_number_clean = re.sub(r'[^a-zA-Z0-9]', '', self.part_number).lower()
self.validate_unique()
The model is only responsible for describing data and how that data should be represented between your Python and database environment. It's because of this atomic role that models don't care about validation and what you've just went in there and introduced it.
You need a model form. It can clean the manufacturer and part number and also ensure that uniqueness constraints are satisfied as part of the validation process.
I have the following model:
class mark(models.Model):
title=models.CharField(max_length=35)
url=models.URLField(max_length=200)
user=models.ManyToManyField(User,blank=True)
and then I use a form to save some data to the db. My code inside the view that saves the data is:
new_mark= mark(url=request.POST['url'],
title=request.POST['title'],
user=request.user)
new_mark.save()
Of course I have all the data validation, login required validation, etc.
When I run this it throws me an unexpected
'user' is an invalid keyword argument for this function
on theuser=request.user) line. Any ideas what might be wrong?
Please provide the whole traceback and make sure your view has no function named "mark" etc (You probably also want to change mark to Mark to follow Python and Django style guides.) test via print type(mark) before the "new_mark = …" line.
Also I am not 100% sure if a ManyToMany field allows settings data like that, eg try:
new_mark= mark(url=request.POST['url'],
title=request.POST['title'])
new_mark.user.add(request.user)
new_mark.save()
And since it's an m2m field you probably want to rename the field to users.
This is a follow-up question on Delete field from standard Django model. In short: a field can be dynamically deleted from a model that is already created, in this case the field User.email . So field email would be deleted from User without changing the code for User. See code below for example.
I can dynamically delete a a field from a model(1), but that happens when the server starts and is undone when it exists. Since syncdb doesn't require the server to be running, and generally seems to ignore the deletion code (somehow), this approach doesn't prevent the field from appearing in the database(2).
Is there a way to do delete the field from the model (without changing the file it's in, as it's a Django model), in a way that also makes it not appear in the database?
Thanks in advance!
Mark
EDIT: I problem is not that I am deleting the text "m = models.IntegerField()" from the model file and want the field removed from the database. The problem is that I am using the code below to remove a field from a model that has already been declared in another file. I do not think that creating a migration with South for every time I run syncdb is a solution(3).
Additional information:
1) Currently, the code is in models.py, but I suppose Where to put Django startup code? works.
2) I can delete it on post_syncdb signal with custom query, but I hope for something more elegant... Or elegant at all, more accurately.
3) If it even works at all, because obviously syncdb is still seeing the 'removed' field), so I think South would to as it's still somehow there.
This is the code (models.py):
class A(models.Model):
m = models.IntegerField()
for i, f in enumerate(A._meta.fields):
if f.name == 'm':
del A._meta.fields[i]
break
class B(A):
n = models.IntegerField()
for i, f in enumerate(B._meta.fields):
if f.name == 'm':
del B._meta.fields[i]
break
EDIT: I checked (with print) and the deletion code is executed on syncdb. It is executed before tables are created
django does a lot of meta class magic and i would guess that the meta class is responsible for defining the database table to back your model. Subsequently just deleting the field is not enough to alter the generated table.
as several people have pointed out, south is the way to deal with these problems.