I'm making a little vocabulary-quiz app, and the basic model for a word is this:
class Word(models.Model):
id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
word = models.CharField(max_length=80)
id_image = models.ForeignKey(Image)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.word
class Meta:
db_table = u'word'
The model for words I'm currently quizzing myself on is this:
class WordToWorkOn(models.Model):
id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
id_student = models.ForeignKey(Student)
id_word = models.ForeignKey(Word)
level = models.IntegerField()
def __unicode__(self):
return u'%s %s' % (self.id_word.__unicode__(), self.id_student.__unicode__() )
class Meta:
db_table = u'word_to_work_on'
Where "level" indicates how well I've learned it. The set of words I've already learned has this model:
class WordLearned(models.Model):
id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)
id_word = models.ForeignKey(Word, related_name='word_to_learn')
id_student = models.ForeignKey(Student, related_name='student_learning_word')
def __unicode__(self):
return u'%s %s' % (self.id_word.__unicode__(), self.id_student.__unicode__() )
class Meta:
db_table = u'word_learned'
When a queryset on WordToWorkOn comes back with too few results (because they have been learned well enough to get moved into WordLearned and deleted from WordToWorkOn), I want to find a Word to add to it. The part I don't know a good way to do is to limit it to Words which are not already in WordLearned.
So, generally speaking, I think I want to do an .exclude() of some sort on a queryset of Words, but it needs to exclude based on membership in the WordLearned table. Is there a good way to do this? I find lots of references to joining querysets, but couldn't find a good one on how to do this (probably just don't know the right term to search for).
I don't want to just use a flag on each Word to indicate learned, working on it, or not learned, because eventually this will be a multi-user app and I wouldn't want to have flags for every user. Hence, I thought multiple tables for each set would be better.
All advice is appreciated.
Firstly, a couple of notes about style.
There's no need to prefix the foreign key fields with id_. The underlying database field that Django creates for those FKs are suffixed with _id anyway, so you'll get something like id_word_id in the db. It'll make your code much clearer if you just call the fields 'word', 'student', etc.
Also, there's no need to specify the id autofields in each model. They are created automatically, and you should only specify them if you need to call them something else. Similarly, no need to specify db_table in your Meta, as this is also done automatically.
Finally, no need to call __unicode__ on the fields in your unicode method. The string interpolation will do that automatically, and again leaving it out will make your code much easier to read. (If you really want to do it explicitly, at least use the unicode(self.word) form.)
Anyway, on to your actual question. You can't 'join' querysets as such - the normal way to do a cross-model query is to have a foreignkey from one model to the other. You could do this:
words_to_work_on = Word.objects.exclude(WordLearned.objects.filter(student=user))
which under the hood will do a subquery to get all the WordLearned objects for the current user and exclude them from the list of words returned.
However, and especially bearing in mind your future requirement for a multiuser app, I think you should restructure your tables. What you want is a ManyToMany relationship between Word and Student, with an intermediary table capturing the status of a Word for a particular Student. That way you can get rid of the WordToWorkOn and WordLearned tables, which are basically duplicates.
Something like:
class Word(models.Model):
word = models.CharField(max_length=80)
image = models.ForeignKey(Image)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.word
class Student(models.Model):
... name, etc ...
words = models.ManyToManyField(Word, through='StudentWord')
class StudentWord(models.Model):
word = models.ForeignKey(Word)
student = models.ForeignKey(Student)
level = models.IntegerField()
learned = models.BooleanField()
Now you can get all the words to learn for a particular student:
words_to_learn = Word.objects.filter(studentword__student=student, studentword__learned=False)
Related
I have created a model called Department, Course. Models are as follow
This is the model for departments and course
class Departments(models.Model):
Department_Id = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True)
Department_Name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
Department_Code = models.CharField(max_length=200)
class Course(models.Model):
Course_Id = models.IntegerField(primary_key=True)
Department_Id = models.ForeignKey(Departments, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
Course_Name = models.CharField(max_length=200)
Course_Code = models.CharField(max_length=200)
I want to create a model called view which can be later on called for search. I want a view model in a such a way that it consit of the data in concat form i.e. name= Department_name+ Course_Name
class View (models.model):
view_id= models.IntegerField(primary_key=True)
Name= Department_name(I want this from Departments table)
+ Course_Name(I want this from Course table)
I try using one to one relation . I would really appricate the help
It's not clear why you'd want to do that. It's never a good idea to duplicate data from one model into another one, as it can lead to inconsistencies.
You can add a ForeignKey in View to your Course model and then when you do f"{view.course.name} {view.course.department.name}" you already have your string:
class View(models.Model):
course = models.ForeignKey(Course, on_delete=models.CASCADE)
def name(self):
return f"{self.course.name} {self.course.department.name}"
Notes:
Don't call your foreign key Department_id because it's not referring to the id but to the object itself in the Django ORM: department = models.ForeignKey(Department, on_delete=models.CASCADE). As you can see, this makes reading the code much simpler: self.course.Department_id is a Department object not an integer, so self.course.department makes more sense.
Don't prefix your field names with the class, it just makes the code so much less readable: Do you prefer department.name or department.Department_name?
The View model is still a mystery to me, as you can search without it. You can search for example for courses with a matching department name like this:
Course.objects.filter(department__name__icontains="maths")
which will return all courses with "maths" in their department name.
Remove all the ids from your models, they are created automatically by Django anyway (and called id). Again, department.id is much easier to read than department.Department_id. Also in your code, you have to generate the ids yourself since you don't set them to auto-populate.
I have a question whether or not it is possible to use the generic UpdateView class to edit "both sides" of a many-to-many relationship.
I have the following classes defined in models.py:
class SomeCategory(models.Model):
code = models.CharField(max_length=5)
name = models.CharField(max_length=40)
class SomeClass(models.Model):
code = models.CharField(max_length=3, unique=True)
name = models.CharField(max_length=30, unique=False)
age = models.IntegerField(null=False)
allowed_categories = models.ManyToManyField(SomeCategory)
These are both dictionary type tables that store sets of configuration data for my application. To allow editing the dictionaries I use simple UpdateViews:
class SomeClassUpdate(UpdateView):
model = SomeClass
template_name = 'admin/edit_class.html'
fields = ['code', 'name', 'age', 'allowed_categories']
ordering = ['code']
This works fine, I get a nice multi-select and everything is perfect. However, I would like to have the possibility to edit the relationship from the side of the SomeCategory table, so I can choose which SomeClass elements are linked to a certain SomeCategory:
class SomeCategoryUpdate(UpdateView):
model = SomeCategory
template_name = 'admin/edit_category.html'
fields = ['code', 'name', ??????? ]
ordering = ['code']
I have tried adding the related_name attribute to the SomeCategory model, but that did not work.
Any ideas if this can be done without using a custom ModelForm?
Key library versions:
Django==1.11.8
psycopg2==2.7.4
PS: this is my very first question asked on stackoverflow, so please let me know if my post is missing any mandatory elements.
Your issue is in the models.py file. You have two classes, but only one of them mentions the other one. You would think that this should be enough since you are using ManyToManyField after all and assume that it would automatically create every connection leading both ways... Unfortunately this is not true. On the database level it does indeed create a separate intermediary table with references to objects in both original tables, but that doesn't mean that both of them will be automatically visible in Django Admin or similar.
If you would attempt to simply create another someclass = models.ManyToManyField(SomeClass) in the SomeCategory class that would fail. Django would try to create another separate intermediary table through which the connection between two main tables is established. But because the name of the intermediary table depends on where you define the ManyToManyField connection, the second table would be created with a different name and everything would just logically collapse (two tables having two separate default ways to have a ManyToMany connection makes no sense).
The solution is to add a ManyToManyField connection to SomeCategory while also referencing that intermediary/through table that was originally created in the SomeClass class.
A couple of notes about Django/python/naming/programming conventions:
Use the name of the table you are referencing to, as the name of the field that is containing the info about that connection. Meaning that SomeClass's field with a link to SomeCategory should be named somecategory instead of allowed_categories.
If the connection is one-to-many - use singular form; if the connection is many-to-many - use plural. Meaning that in this case we should use plural and use somecategories instead of somecategory.
Django can automatically pluralize names, but it does it badly - it simply adds s letter to the end. Mouse -> Mouses, Category -> Categorys. In those kind of cases you have to help it by defining the verbose_name_plural in the special Meta class.
Using references to other classes without extra 's works only if the the class was already defined previously in the code. In the case of two classes referring to each other that is true only one way. The solution is to put the name of the referred class in the quotation marks like 'SomeCategory' instead of SomeCategory. This sort of reference, called a lazy relationship, can be useful when resolving circular import dependencies between two applications. And since by default it's better to keep the style the same and to avoid unnecessary brain energy wasting of "I will decide whether or not to use quotation marks depending on the order the classes have been organized; I will have to redo this quotation marks thingie every time I decide to move some code pieces around" I recommend that you simply use quotation marks every time. Just like when learning to drive a car - it's better to learn to always use turn signals instead of first looking around and making a separate decision of whether someone would benefit from that information.
"Stringifying" (lazy loading) model/class/table name is easy - just add 's around. You would think that stringifying the "through" table reference would work the same easy way. And you would be wrong - it will give you the ValueError: Invalid model reference. String model references must be of the form 'app_label.ModelName'. error. In order to reference the stringified "through" table you need to: (a) add 's around; (b) replace all dots (.) with underscores (_); (c) delete the reference to through!.. So SomeClass.somecategories.through becomes 'SomeClass_somecategories'.
Therefore the solution is this:
class SomeCategory(models.Model):
code = models.CharField(max_length=5)
name = models.CharField(max_length=40)
someclasses = models.ManyToManyField('SomeClass', through='SomeClass_somecategories', blank=True)
class Meta:
verbose_name_plural = 'SomeCategories'
class SomeClass(models.Model):
code = models.CharField(max_length=3, unique=True)
name = models.CharField(max_length=30, unique=False)
age = models.IntegerField(null=False)
somecategories = models.ManyToManyField('SomeCategory')
After this it should be obvious what kind of final changes to make to your UpdateView classes.
You can achieve this in the view and form, without having to specify the additional ManytoMany connections in the
models, using something like the following:
In the View
class SomeClassUpdate(UpdateView):
model = SomeClass
form_class = SomeClassUpdateForm # to specify the form
template_name = 'admin/edit_class.html'
def form_valid(self, form, *args, **kwargs):
initial_somecategorys = SomeCategory.objects.filter(allowed_categories__pk=form.instance.pk)
amended_somecategorys = form.cleaned_data['allowed_categroies']
remove = [x for x in initial_somecategorys if x not in amended_somecategorys]
add = [x for x in amended_somecategorys if x not in initial_somecategorys]
for somecategory in add:
somecategory.allowed_categories.add(form.instance)
somecategory.save()
for somecategory in remove:
somecategory.allowed_categories.remove(form.instance)
somecategory.save()
return super().form_valid(form)
In the Form
The init method at the top pre-populates the form with entries saved on the model.
class SomeClassUpdateForm(forms.ModelForm):
def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs):
super(SomeClassUpdateForm, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs)
try:
obj = kwargs['instance']
self.fields["some_categories"].initial = SomeCategory.objects.filter(allowed_categories__pk=form.instance.pk)
except (AttributeError, KeyError): # to catch NoneType if new entry being created.
pass
some_categories = forms.ModelMultipleChoiceField(
required=False,
queryset=SomeCategory.objects.all(),
)
class Meta:
model = SomeClass
fields = [
'some_categories'
..etc
]
This should work. I've writen similar code in one of my projects, and it's working fine. However, I don't know if it's
structurally best to use methods like this and not alter the model relationships or whether it's preferable to
alter the model relationships as outlined in other replies. So I'd be interested to know other peoples views on what
the best approach is.
I'm trying to use ModelChoiceFilter to filter a database of letters based on the author. Author is a ForeignKey, and I can't seem to get it to display the "name" value of the ForeignKey.
Here is what I have:
models.py (limited to relevant bits)
class Person(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=250, verbose_name='Full Name')
...
def __str__(self):
return self.name
class Letter(models.Model):
author = models.ForeignKey(Person, related_name='author', on_delete=models.PROTECT, verbose_name='Letter Author')
recipient = models.ForeignKey(Person, related_name='recipient', on_delete=models.PROTECT, verbose_name='Recipient')
...
title = models.CharField(max_length=250, verbose_name='Title of Letter')
def __str__(self):
return self.title
letter_filters.py
class LetterFilter(django_filters.FilterSet):
...
author = django_filters.ModelChoiceFilter(queryset=Letter.objects.order_by('author__name'))
class Meta:
model = Letter
fields = ['author', 'recipient']
I can see that this kind of works. It is indeed limiting and ordering it properly, but instead of the author name being presented in the select box, it's presenting "title" from the letter (but I can tell from the title, in the proper order).
What I thought should work is this:
fields = ['author__name', 'recipient']
But that too continues to list "title" from Letter instead of "name" from Person.
I know it has what I need, because if I do:
author = django_filters.ModelChoiceFilter(queryset=Letter.objects.order_by('author__name').values('author__name'))
I get exactly what I want! But, it's presented as {'author__name':'Jane Doe'} with fields author or author_name. I just can't seem to get the right syntax.
Finally, I know I can do:
author = django_filters.ModelChoiceFilter(queryset=Person.objects.order_by('name'))
Which returns all Persons, properly ordered. However there are many more persons in the database than just authors. This is the same result as just allowing the default fields['author'... without setting the author= in the class (though unordered).
Well the queryset you specify deals with Letters, so as a result the Letters are in that cases added in the ModelChoiceFiler, which is not ideal at all.
You can however generate a list of Persons that has written at least one letter like:
django_filters.ModelChoiceFilter(
queryset=Person.objects.filter(letter_set__isnull=False).order_by('name').distinct()
)
So here we filter on the fact that the letter_set is not empty, and since this will result in a JOIN where a Person can occur multiple times, we add .distinct() to it.
I find this modeling however very weird (in your three examples). It basically means that you only can assign Persons that already wrote a Letter. What if a person that has never written a Letter wants to write a Letter?
Usually in case there are different such roles, you can for example add a BooleanField:
class Person(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=250, verbose_name='Full Name')
is_author = models.BooleanField(verbose_name='Is the person an author')
# ...
Then we can filter on Persons that are Authors:
django_filters.ModelChoiceFilter(
queryset=Person.objects.filter(is_author=True).order_by('name')
)
I have two Models in Django. The first has the hierarchy of what job functions (positions) report to which other positions, and the second is people and what job function they hold.
class PositionHierarchy(model.Model):
pcn = models.CharField(max_length=50)
title = models.CharField(max_length=100)
level = models.CharField(max_length=25)
report_to = models.ForeignKey('PositionHierachy', null=True)
class Person(model.Model):
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
last_name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
...
position = models.ForeignKey(PositionHierarchy)
When I have a Person record and I want to find the person's manager, I have to do
manager = person.position.report_to.person_set.all()[0]
# Can't use .first() because we haven't upgraded to 1.6 yet
If I'm getting people with a QuerySet, I can join (and avoid a second trip to the database) with position and report_to using Person.objects.select_related('position', 'position__reports_to').filter(...), but is there any way to avoid making another trip to the database to get the person_set? I tried adding 'position__reports_to__person_set' or just position__reports_to__person to the select_related, but that doesn't seem to change the query. Is this what prefetch_related is for?
I'd like to make a custom manager so that when I do a query to get Person records, I also get their PositionHeirarchy and their manager's Person record without more round trips to the database. This is what I have so far:
class PersonWithManagerManager(models.Manager):
def get_query_set(self):
qs = super(PersonWithManagerManager, self).get_query_set()
return qs.select_related(
'position',
'position__reports_to',
).prefetch_related(
)
Yes, that is what prefetch_related() is for. It will require an additional query, but the idea is that it will get all of the related information at once, instead of once per Person.
In your case:
qs.select_related('position__report_to')
.prefetch_related('position__report_to__person_set')
should require two queries, regardless of the number of Persons in the original query set.
Compare this example from the documentation:
>>> Restaurant.objects.select_related('best_pizza')
.prefetch_related('best_pizza__toppings')
I have several models with several fields in my app. I want to set up a way for the user to be able to modify a help text system for each field in the model. Can you give me some guidance on how to design the models, and what field types to use? I don't feel right about storing the model and field name in CharFields, but if that is the only way, I may be stuck with it.
Is there a more elegant solution using Django?
For a quick and silly example, with an app named jobs, one named fun, and make a new app named helptext:
jobs.models.py:
class Person(models.Model):
first_name = models.CharField(max_length=32)
.
.
interests = models.TextField()
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
class Job(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=128)
person = models.ForeignKey(Person)
address = models.TextField()
duties = models.TextField()
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
fun.models.py:
class RollerCoaster(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=128)
scare_factor = models.PositiveInteger()
def __unicode__(self):
return self.name
class BigDipper(RollerCoaster):
max_elevation = models.PositiveInteger()
best_comment_ever_made = models.CharField(max_length=255)
def __unicode__(self):
return super.name
Now, let's say I want to have editable help text on Person.interests, and Job.duties, RollerCoaster.scare_factor, and BigDipper.best_comment_ever_made. I'd have something like:
helptext.models.py:
from django.contrib.contenttypes.models import ContentType
class HelpText(models.Model):
the_model = models.ForeignKey(ContentType)
the_field = models.CharField(max_length=255)
helptext = models.CharField(max_length=128)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.helptext
So, what is the better way to do this, other than making HelpText.the_model and HelpText.the_field CharFields that have to be compared when I am rendering the template to see if helptext is associated with each field on the screen?
Thanks in advance!
Edit:
I know about the help_text parameter of the fields, but I want this to be easily edited through the GUI, and it may contain a LOT of help with styling, etc. It would be HTML with probably upwards of 50-60 lines of text for probably 100 different model fields. I don't want to store it in the field definition for those reasons.
I changed the HelpText model to have a reference to ContentType and the field a CharField. Does this seem like a good solution? I am not sure this is the most elegant way. Please advise.
Edit 2013-04-19 16:53 PST:
Currently, I tried this and it works, but not sure this is great:
from django.db import models
from django.contrib.contenttypes.models import ContentType
# Field choices for the drop down.
FIELDS = ()
# For each ContentType verify the model_class() is not None and if not, add a tuple
# to FIELDS with the model name and field name displayed, but storing only the field
# name.
for ct in ContentType.objects.all():
m = ct.model_class()
if m is not None:
for f in ct.model_class()._meta.get_all_field_names():
FIELDS += ((f, str(ct.model) + '.' + str(f)),)
# HelpText model, associated with multiple models and fields.
class HelpText(models.Model):
the_model = models.ForeignKey(ContentType)
the_field = models.CharField(max_length=255, choices=FIELDS)
helptext = models.TextField(null=True, blank=True)
def __unicode__(self):
return self.helptext
Doesn't feel like the best, but please advise if this is a solution that will bite me in the behind later on and make me filled with regrets... :*(
The solution works, and I have it implemented, but you have to be aware that sometimes the ContentTypes get out of sync with your models. You can manually update the content types with this:
python manage.py shell
>>> from django.contrib.contenttypes.management import update_all_contenttypes
>>> update_all_contenttypes(interactive=True)
This allows you to add the new ones and remove the old ones, if they exist.
The nice thing about the Field not being a foreign key is that I can put anything in it for help text. So, say I have a field "First Name." I can put a helptext connected to the Person model and the "first_name" field. I can also make something up, like "Something really confusing." The helptext is now associated with the Person model and the "Something really confusing" field. So, I can put it at the top of the form, instead of associating to a field with hard foreign keying. It can be anything arbitrary and will follow with that "field" anywhere. The hangup would be that you may change the name of the helptext field association inadvertently sending your original helptext into never land.
To make this easy, I created a TemplateTag, which I pass the name of the model and the name of the "field" I want to associate. Then anytime the template is rendered, that helptext is there, editable for anybody to get assistance with their user interface forms.
Not sure this is the best solution, but I couldn't really see any other way to do it, and got no responses.
Cheerio!