Here's the deal:
I got two db models, let's say ShoppingCart and Order. Following the DRY principle I'd like to extract some common props/methods into a shared interface ItemContainer.
Everything went fine till I came across the _flush() method which mainly performs a delete on a related object set.
class Order(models.Model, interface.ItemContainer):
# ...
def _flush(self):
# ...
self.orderitem_set.all().delete()
So the question is: how do I dynamically know wheter it is orderitem_set or shoppingcartitem_set?
First, here are two Django snippets that should be exactly what you're looking for:
Model inheritance with content type and inheritance-aware manager
ParentModel and ChildManager for Model Inheritance
Second, you might want to re-think your design and switch to the django.contrib content types framework which has a simple .model_class() method. (The first snippet posted above also uses the content type framework).
Third, you probably don't want to use multiple inheritance in your model class. It shouldn't be needed and I wouldn't be surprised if there were some obscure side affects. Just have interface.ItemContainer inherit from models.Model and then Order inherit from only interface.ItemContainer.
You can set the related_name argument of a ForeignKey, so if you want to make minimal changes to your design, you could just have ShoppingCartItem and OrderItem set the same related_name on their ForeignKeys to ShoppingCart and Order, respectively (something like "item_set"):
order = models.ForeignKey(Order, related_name='item_set')
and
cart = models.ForeignKey(ShoppingCart, related_name='item_set')
Related
I am using Multi-Table inheritance (aka Concrete Inheritance), where I have a non-abstract model + DB Table called Clients, which is concerned with common details concerning all the clients.
But a client can be an Individual, Partnership or Company, for which I have created inheriting models and tables. An Individual has first name + last name, and company has other specific particulars, etc.
I want to be able to access the names of clients (derived from the columns from the child tables) when I want a list of all clients.
After lot of searching, I found that this tutorial, works successfully.
Basically, it involves inserting a column on the Client table, which will store the name of the Child model. Then using that name, the appropriate child model is identified and appropriate child method is accessed.
But it seems to be a slightly cumbersome way to implement polymorphism in Multi-Table inheritance.
I want to know whether since 2012, Django has introduced any better way to deal with the issue, or is this still the only way?
Please let me know if my code sample is required, but the link provided has a beautiful example already.
There is django-model-utils application with Inheritance Manager. It will cast automatically your parent class to children instances. Example from docs:
from model_utils.managers import InheritanceManager
class Place(models.Model):
# ...
objects = InheritanceManager()
class Restaurant(Place):
# ...
class Bar(Place):
# ...
nearby_places = Place.objects.filter(location='here').select_subclasses()
for place in nearby_places:
# "place" will automatically be an instance of Place, Restaurant, or Bar
Also check this question for generic solution with ContentType.
And also check awesome article by Jeff Elmore about this topic. Quite old, but still great.
Let's say I have a base class with, for example:
class Base(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50, blank=False, null=False)
value1 = models.CharField(max_length=50)
value2 = models.CharField(max_length=50)
Now, I'm inputting several types of objects into the table, some of which use parts of the data, some of which use other parts, all of them using some common part (name in this example).
I want a complete listing, but I want to have different views when I click into an object, depending on it's type. Changes in the modelAdmin include: one of the classes uses inlines, others don't, list_display varies, one has extra CSS, etc, etc. Basically we're talking about different modelAdmins.
Alternatives I'm thinking: one is that each of those types subclasses Base, i.e.:
class Type1(Base):
pass
class Type2(Base):
pass
and then I define a modelAdmin for each of them, and one for the Base class just to get the table listing everything. In this one I would override the links so they don't go to /app/base/id, but instead to /app/type1/id, /app/type2/id, etc depending on the type. For each of these, I modify the modelAdmins so after saving they go back to /app/type
A different alternative would be having a single model and a single modelAdmin, and overriding every single method I'm using for change_view to consider what type of object it's rendering, i.e., get_inline_instances, get_formsets, whatever I need to modify list_display, list_display_links, list_filter, etc.
The first alternative looks way cleaner to me, although I'm not sure how to modify the link other than defining a method in the modelAdmin with the correct call to reverse and adding that method as a column in list_display.
Is there an easier way I'm missing?. How would you do it?.
Oh, and it HAS to use the admin. I'd rather do this using views, or separate models, but sadly this is the way it has to be. The High Command wants everything in one single table.
Thanks!.
Edit: also, I just found this and it looks good:
http://django-polymorphic.readthedocs.org/en/latest/admin.html
Django-Polymorphic definitely seems the way to go. It's easy to use and automatically gives me the correct modelAdmin when I click through a base object, something I couldn't replicate with Proxies.
Only problem is a table is created for each child class, even if the child class doesn't have any additional fields, and an extra query is performed per child class even though nothing is recovered from it (only column in the table is a foreign key to the base object).
But it works. I can live with that.
I'm currently working on a model in Django involving one model that can have a variety of different traits depending on what kind of object it is. So, let's say we have a model called Mammal, which can either be an Elephant or a Dolphin (with their own traits "tusk_length" and "flipper_length" respectively).
Basic OOP principles shout "polymorphism", and I'm inclined to agree. But, as I'm new to Django, I first want to know whether or not it is the best way to do so in Django. I've heard of plenty of examples of and some people giving their preferences toward singular giant models
I've already tried using GenericForeignKeys as described here: How can I restrict Django's GenericForeignKey to a list of models?. While this solution works beautifully, I don't like the inability to filter, and that the relationship is only one way. That is, while you can get a Dolphin from a Mammal object, you can't get the Mammal object from the Dolphin.
And so, here are my two choices:
Choice A:
from django.db import models
class Mammal(models.Model):
hair_length = models.IntegerField()
tusk_length = models.IntegerField()
flipper_length = models.IntegerField()
animal_type = models.CharField(max_length = 15, choices = ["Elephant", "Dolphin"]
Choice B:
from django.db import models
class Mammal(models.Model):
hair_length = models.IntegerField()
class Elephant(Mammal):
tusk_length = models.IntegerField()
class Dolphin(Mammal):
flipper_length = models.IntegerField()
Choice B, from what I understand, has the advantage of nicer code when querying and listing all Elephants or Dolphins. However, I've noticed it's not as straightforward to get all of the Elephants from a list of Mammals (is there a query for this?) without putting animal_type in the class, with default being dependent on the class.
This leads to another problem I see with polymorphism, which won't come up in this example above or my application, but is worth mentioning is that it would be difficult to edit a Dolphin object into an Elephant without deleting the Dolphin entirely.
Overall, is there any general preference, or any big reason I shouldn't use polymorphism?
My recommendation, in general with database design, is to avoid inheritance. It complicates both the access and updates.
In Django, try using an abstract class for your base model. That means a db table will not be created for it. Its fields/columns will be auto-created in its child models. The benefit is: code reuse in Django/Python code and a simple, flat design in the database. The penalty is: it's more work to manage/query a mixed collection of child models.
See an example here: Django Patterns: Model Inheritance
Alternatively, you could change the concept of "Mammal" to "MammalTraits." And include a MammalTraits object inside each specific mammal class. In code, that is composition (has-a). In the db, that will be expressed as a foreign key.
We ended up going with a large table with a lot of usually-empty columns. Our reasoning was that (in this case) our Mammal table was all we'd be querying over, and there was no (intuitive) way to filter out by certain types of Mammals besides manually checking whether they had a "dolphin" or "elephant" object, which then threw an error if they didn't. Even looking for the type of an object returned from a query that was definitely an Elephant still returned "Mammal". It would be hard to extend any Pythonic workarounds to writing pure SQL, which one of our data guys does regularly.
I was having a similar problem as in
How to query abstract-class-based objects in Django?
The thread suggests using multi_table_inheritance. I personally think using content_type more conceptually comfortable (just feels more close to logic, at least to me)
Using the example in the previous link, I would just add a StelarType as
class StellarType(models.Model):
"""
Use ContentType so we have a single access to all types
"""
content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType)
object_id = models.PositiveIntegerField()
content_object = generic.GenericForeignKey('content_type', 'object_id')
Then add this to the abstract base model
class StellarObject(BaseModel):
title = models.CharField(max_length=255)
description = models.TextField()
slug = models.SlugField(blank=True, null=True)
stellartype = generic.GenericForeignKey(StellarType)
class Meta:
abstract = True
To sync between StellarObject and StellarType, we can connect post_save signal to create a StellarType instance every time a Planet or Star is created. In this way, I can query StellarObjects through StellarType.
So I'd like to know what's the PRO and CON of using this approach against using multi_table_inheritance? I think both create an additional table in the databse. But how about database performance? how about usability/flexibility? Thanks for any of your input!
To me, ContentType is the way to go when you want to relate an object to one of many models that aren't fundamentally of the same "type". Like if you want to be able to key Comments to Users, Pages, and Pictures on a social network, but there's no reasonable supertype shared by those three models. Sure you could create a "Commentable" supertype, but to me that feels more like a mixin than a fundamental type from which those three things derive. Before ContentType came out, you would have had no choice but to invent supertypes for these kind of relations, which can get really ugly really quickly if you need to do it multiple times in the same application (lets say you also have Events, Alerts, Messages, etc., each of which can apply to a different set of models).
Multi-table inheritance makes the most sense when you want to attach attributes to the base model, such that they will be shared in all concrete models that extend from it, so that you can get polymorphic behavior. Commentable doesn't really fit this mold, because all of that behavior can be put on the Comment model, less so on the Commentable objects. But if you have different classes of Users that share much of the same behavior and should be aggregable, then it makes a lot more sense.
The major pro of multi-table inheritance to me is a cleaner data model, with implicit relationships and inheritance that can be taken advantage of on the Python side (polymorphism is still a bit messy though, as seen here and here). The major pro of ContentType is that it is more general and keeps auxiliary functionality out of your models, at the cost of a bit of a slightly less pristine schema (lots of "meta" fields on your models to define these relationships). And for your example, you still have to rely on post_save, which seems unnecessarily messy/magical to me, as well.
Sorry for reviving old thread. I think it all boils down to the lookup direction. Whether you look up all subclasses for a certain FK (multitable inheritance) or define the referenced class as a content type and look it up based on the table reference and id (contenttypes) makes no big difference in performance - hint: they both suck. I think content types is a nice choice if you want your app to be easily extendible, i.e. others can add new content types to reference against. Multitable is good if you only sometimes need the extra columns defined in extra tables. Sometimes it might also be a good idea to merge all your subtypes and make only one which has a few fields left empty most of the time.
Probably easiest to explain with an example:
class Item(models.Model):
# ...
class ComplexItem(Item):
components = models.ManyToManyField(Item, through='ComponentItem', symmetrical=False, related_name='component_of')
class ComponentItem(models.Model):
# ...
item = models.ForeignKey(ComplexItem)
component = models.ForeignKey(Item, related_name='used_in_items
I would like a table of Items, with a name, price etc. Then I would like to define ComplexItems which are Items in their own right, but they require other Items in varying quantities.
The above causes the following exception in the admin app:
<class 'inventory.models.ComponentItem'> has more than 1 ForeignKey to <class 'inventory.models.ComplexItem'>
I need to override instance methods in ComplexItem and generally seperate the behavior from Item and the inheritance makes sense from a pure data view.
Is there some alternative definition of this relationship? I'd also like to avoid needing 'related_name' on both ComponentItem.component and ComplexItem.components.
You need to go back to the drawing board. While it's probably technically possible for a model to both inherit from and simultaneously be composed of another model, it's going to get sticky quick.
Try making ComplexItem just inherit from models.Model like Item does. Bet you that change alone will fix everything.
The model above actually works fine (I think, I haven't tested and decided against it for the moment). However the table generated for ComplexItem only has one column pointing to Item, which is fairly useless.
The functionality of ComponentItem can still be gotten by defining a ManyToMany relationship from Item to 'self' through ComponentItem.
Defining separate behavior is as easy as creating a Proxy model.
The actual error above came from my admin.Inline not being able to pick the correct foreign key to use for a ComponentItem, which can be solved like this.
I may come back to the inheritance above, but this works for now.