My site allows users to post things on the site with an expiry date. Once the item has expired, it will no longer be displayed in the listings. Posts can also be closed, canceled, or completed. I think it would be be nicest just to be able to check for one attribute or status ("is active") rather than having to check for [is not expired, is not completed, is not closed, is not canceled]. Handling the rest of those is easy because I can just have one "status" field which is essentially an enum, but AFAIK, it's impossible to set the status to "expired" as soon as that time occurs. How do people typically handle this?
Edit: I'm not asking how to write a query to find expired items; I'm asking how I can find the "active" (unexpired items that meet a few other boolean conditions) without having to use a big nasty query every time I want to find them.
I think that can be managed with cronjob and django custom management command, is just an idea.
Make the item have birth and death (type:date) columns and a status column (completed, removed, to be expired...).
Update/fill the death column when you want to logically end the lifecycle of an item (for whatever reason: expiry, completed, ...). Update the status column accordingly.
Querying for active items (in pseudo-SQL):
select * from mytable where birth <= todays_date <= death or death is null
It sounds like the expiration date/time is the field that you need to actually store and make decisions based off of. IsActive sounds like something you would calculate on the fly based on the expiration date and possibly other fields (even though its a pain)
IsActive as a field would probably work better if it wasn't a product of some other information like the expiration date, but was valid on its own, such as if a user manually set the status to "active" or "not active".
Related
On my template i have a button to collect fee that takes the user to next screen. However, i want a check on this button's click event if the fee is already paid-in-full and prompts the user via message on screen.
In related model i have method that checks if fee is paid in full. I had added the condition on template like this and it disabled the button
<td>Add Fee</td>
but this increases the number of queries as i have a many students records on current view.
In general if i want such validations before user can go to new/assigned view, what would be the best practice.
Since you've asked for best practices followed, I will point out a few:
Pagination, use offset and limit for fetching the list of Students - have a look at index function here - thereby preventing too many database calls in one go.
Getting such information ideally shouldn't require extra DB calls, the table joins should suffice - thereby taking away the need for several database calls.
Note: I'm not suggesting changing the view/ user experience, as that would be out of the scope of this discussion.
I'm trying to figure out how companies that use nosql database solve this general nosql race condition issue:
Lucky example: User and Product. Product has quantity of 1 and there are 2 users. When the first user tries to buy this product, system first checks whether quantity is > 0 and it is indeed > 0, proceeds to create a Transaction object and decrement quantity of product. The second user tries to buy the product, system rejects as quantity isn't > 0.
Unlucky: Both users try to buy the product simultaneously. For both, system confirmed quantity is > 0 and so created a Transaction object for both users, hence destroying the company image next day...
How to generally deal with this common scenario?
From similar cases i found on the net, one suggested solution is to use request queue, and process the request one by one. However, if all transactions are queued, and you're running business like Amazon (millions of transactions every now and then), how do we expect users to know whether or not their purchase succeeded shortly after they clicked that purchase now button?
One of the ways to solve this problem is to allow both users to order products simultaneously.
Then there are two possible situations:
One of the users doesn't finish a transaction (refuses to pay, closes a browser window etc). Then another one will have the requested amount of a product.
Both users finished their transactions. Then you will get a random user your product and say sorry to another one giving away a coupon with $10 to him/her.
The second situation should happen extremely rare. So you won't blow out all your money on coupons and your users will be happy whatever the outcome. But you still need to monitor the 2nd situation in order to react and make changes to your system if it happens more often than you expected.
I would like to query earliest posts of a Facebook user using FQL or Graph API. The big issue is by default, Facebook limit return items, which are ordered by descending time.
I know I can limit my query by until, but I don't know what date to put in, because I have no idea when my user become Facebook member. I have to do search like:
find post until Jan 2006
if null, then find post until Jan 2007
if null, then find post until Jan 2008
....
which I hate so much.
Is there a smarter way to find out earliest posts by user?
First off, it's near impossible to have an all encompassing program that determines when a user joined Facebook, to put it quite bluntly. I know from your past questions, you have been trying but many have tried before you, it's not possible.
For example what happens if no one decides to write anything on my wall from the date I joined to 1 year after? That indicator becomes pretty inaccurate now does it?
Anything smarter is based on assumptions that may or may not hold true.
e.g.
Assumption 1: Every Facebook user would publish a post on or near when they joined
this give an initial guess based on A1
Assumptions 2: Given A1, any post by a friend on a user's wall that is posted before the unix time returned by A1 will be earlier in date
this will always be true as long as A1 holds.
All of this falls when there is a year between actual activity and join date.
You can minimize the set returned by calling less data per item and more items overall
/me/feed?fields=created_time&limit=200
Then you page until there is no next paging parameter left.
If you are indeed trying to find when did a user join Facebook, I agree with phwd's answer.
The best way I have been able to find out (which is also cheaper than having to reiterate through tons of posts) is accessing the earliest "profile pictures" of the user. This is making the assumption that a user would post a profile picture soon after creating their account.
Once you can get access to "Profile Pictures" album, you might be able to use created_time field for the album (or sort Profile Pictures by created_time for individual photos).
Even if the earliest photo was deleted, what are the chances that the user stays without any profile picture for a long time?
Reference:
https://developers.facebook.com/docs/graph-api/reference/v2.0/album
1st I want to remove text field for date so the calendar will replace it.
2nd I want to make the status order.. I want to sell the service, so I need to make booking order by calendar. If the date is green client can make an order. If red the client can't book an order. If yellow there certain items can be ordered.
I hope someone can help..
Thanks.
You have to try something at least and ask only for advice then.
Anyway, few suggestions:
it cannot be done using that option field of type date, at least not with the default datepicker.
You will need to create Your own datepicker component that will search for free/partialy/fully ordered days in the database and color the table cells accordingly.
It is not very wise to hide the input - by this visible user could anytime check what date did he pick - if it is not visible he would need to always open the datepicker to check for it...
Disallowing to order some service based on some reservations is highly decreasing Your conversion rate - thus decreasing Your income. I would definitely go the way let the user buy/order anything at anytime while having separate reservation system. If user buys a service at thank You page I would recommend him to book a concrete date for the service to be drawn. Here You do not need to fight with product options which are meant totally for something different that You are trying to.
Keep that in mind (mainly the 4th point) and re-think Your problem.
My model:
class Order(models.Model):
property_a = models.CharField()
property_b = models.CharField()
property_c = models.CharField()
Many users will access a given record in a short time frame via admin change page, so I am having concurrency issues:
User 1 and 2 open the change page at the same time. Assume all values are blank when they load the page. User 1 sets property_a to "a", and property_b to "b", then saves. A second later if user 2 changes property b and c then saves, it will quietly overwrite all the values from user 1. in this case, property_a will go back to being blank and b and c will be whatever user 2 put in.
I need recommendations on how to handle this. If I have to have a version field in the model, how do i pass it to the admin, where do I do the check so I can elegantly notify the user their changes can't be saved because another user has modified the record? Is there a more seamless way than just returning an error to the user?
The standard solution is to prevent your users from sharing a single record. It's not at all clear why so many users are messing with the exact same Order instance.
Consider that Order is probably a composite object and you've put too much into a single model. That's the first -- and best -- solution.
If (for inexplicable reasons) you won't decompose this, then you have to create a two-part update transaction.
Requery the data. Compare with the original query as done for this user's session.
If the data doesn't match the original query, then someone else changed it. The user's changes are invalidated, rolled back, wiped out, and the user sees a new query.
If the data does match, you can try to commit the change.
The above algorithm has a race condition, which is usually resolved via low-level SQL. Note that it invalidates a user's work, making it maximally irritating.
That's why your first choice is to decompose your models to eliminate the concurrency.
my model has a miscellaneous notes field
This is a bad design. (a) Concurrency is ruined by collisions on this field. (b) There's no log or history of comments.
Item (b) means that a badly-behaved user can maliciously corrupt this data. If you keep notes and comments as a log, you can -- in principle -- limit users to changing only their own comments.
[In most databases with "miscellaneous notes" the field has become a costly, hard-to-maintain liability full of important but impossible-to-parse data. Miscellaneous notes is where users invent their own processes outside the application software. ]
"miscellaneous notes" must be treated like a log, with an unlimited number of notes -- date-stamped -- identified by user -- appended to the Order.
If you simply partition the design to put notes in a separate table, you solve your concurrency issues.