Editing saved Multiple Checkbox selections in Django - sql

Whats the best way of performing the save because at the moment. When it comes to editing, I'm not getting the saved responses to populate the form. Other fields such as drop downs are fine. Is there somehthing I should do in the view to make this work? Here is my view:
def populateaboutme(request):
extractlinkedindata(request)
if request.method == "POST":
form = AboutMeForm(request.POST)
if form.is_valid():
today = datetime.date.today()
currentYYMMDD = today.strftime('%Y-%m-%d')
model_instance = form.save(commit=False)
model_instance.save()
request.session["AboutMe_id"] = model_instance.pk
StoreImage(settings.STATIC_ROOT, str(request.session["fotoloc"]), '.jpg', str(request.session["AboutMe_id"]))
return redirect('/dashboard/')
else:
myid = request.session["AboutMe_id"]
if not myid:
form = AboutMeForm()
else:
aboutme = AboutMe.objects.get(pk=int(myid))
form = AboutMeForm(instance=aboutme)
return render(request, "aboutme.html", {'form': form})
Here are the models:
class AboutMe(models.Model):
MyRelationshipIntent = models.CharField(max_length=50)
and the forms:
class AboutMeForm(ModelForm):
class Meta:
model = AboutMe
exclude = ()
MyRelationshipIntent = forms.MultipleChoiceField(choices=RELATIONSHIPINTENT_CHOICES,widget=forms.CheckboxSelectMultiple())
RELATIONSHIPINTENT_CHOICES = (
('JL', 'Just Looking'),
('FL', 'Looking for friendship'),
('FN', 'Looking for fun'),
('FL', 'Looking for a relationship'),
)

You want to use the initial option on the form:
form = AboutMeForm(initial={'name': aboutme.name})
The instance= you are using is what you need to use when saving to tell django this isn't a new object:
if request.method == 'POST':
form = AboutMeForm(request.POST, instance=aboutme)
Now using instance can give the initial values as well, but only when using a modelform, and you still need it for the saving part.
Edit
It took me a while to notice it because I was focusing on the form, but the problem you are having stems, essentially, from the fact that you are using a CharField where you should be using a ManyToManyField. I mean - how would four checked boxes be translated into one CharField and vice-versa? Django can't just guess it. It makes no sense.
You can use a CharField if you somehow add a method to translate it to the checkboxes. But it's also a wrong approach so don't. Instead, I'll give you two solutions, and you'll choose the one you see fit.
The most natural thing to do would be to use a ManyToMany field here, and then tell the django form to use the checkbox field for it (the default would be a multiselect, and if you want you can use a client side plugin to make that look nice as well). Your models would look something like this:
class Intent(models.Model):
relationship = models.CharField(max_length=50)
class AboutMe(models.Model):
intents = models.ManyToManyField(Intent)
Then you just create four Intent instances for each of the values in your RELATIONSHIPINTENT_CHOICES:
rels = ('Just Looking',
'Looking for friendship',
'Looking for fun',
'Looking for a relationship')
for i in rels:
new = Intent(relationship=i)
new.save()
This is especially good if you think that you might want to add more options later on (and you can create a model on the admin site to ease that proccess instead of the script I wrote up there). If you don't like that solution and you're sure your options would remain the same, another good solution that might suit you is creating a boolean field for each option. Like this:
class AboutMe(models.Model)
jl = models.BooleanField(verbose_name='Just Looking')
fl = models.BooleanField(verbose_name='Looking for friendship')
fn = models.BooleanField(verbose_name='Looking for fun')
fl = models.BooleanField(verbose_name='Looking for a relationship')
Then you don't even need the widget, because checkbox is the default for boolean fields. After doing this, using form(instance=aboutme) and form(initial={'jl': aboutme.jl}) would both work. I know those might look a little scary and more complex than your simple CharField, but this is the right way to go.
p.s.
Other python tips to keep in mind:
Don't name your class "AboutMe". That should be the view, not the model. It makes more sense (to me at least) to make it an extension of the built-in User, name it User or give it a similar fitting name (Profile or Account or the sort)
Field names should not look like class names (check out PEP8 for more conventions). So it should be my_relationship_intent. However, that's also a long and wearying name. relationship_intent or simply intents is a lot better.

Related

Implementing a "soft delete" system using sqlalchemy

We are creating a service for an app using tornado and sqlalchemy. The application is written in django and uses a "soft delete mechanism". What that means is that there was no deletion in the underlying mysql tables. To mark a row as deleted we simply set the attributed "delete" as True. However, in the service we are using sqlalchemy. Initially, we started to add check for delete in the queries made through sqlalchemy itself like:
customers = db.query(Customer).filter(not_(Customer.deleted)).all()
However this leads to a lot of potential bugs because developers tend to miss the check for deleted in there queries. Hence we decided to override the default querying with our query class that does a "pre-filter":
class SafeDeleteMixin(Query):
def __iter__(self):
return Query.__iter__(self.deleted_filter())
def from_self(self, *ent):
# override from_self() to automatically apply
# the criterion too. this works with count() and
# others.
return Query.from_self(self.deleted_filter(), *ent)
def deleted_filter(self):
mzero = self._mapper_zero()
if mzero is not None:
crit = mzero.class_.deleted == False
return self.enable_assertions(False).filter(crit)
else:
return self
This inspired from a solution on sqlalchemy docs here:
https://bitbucket.org/zzzeek/sqlalchemy/wiki/UsageRecipes/PreFilteredQuery
However, we are still facing issues, like in cases where we are doing filter and update together and using this query class as defined above the update does not respect the criterion of delete=False when applying the filter for update.
db = CustomSession(with_deleted=False)()
result = db.query(Customer).filter(Customer.id == customer_id).update({Customer.last_active_time: last_active_time })
How can I implement the "soft-delete" feature in sqlalchemy
I've done something similar here. We did it a bit differently, we made a service layer that all database access goes through, kind of like a controller, but only for db access, we called it a ResourceManager, and it's heavily inspired by "Domain Driven Design" (great book, invaluable for using SQLAlchemy well). A derived ResourceManager exists for each aggregate root, ie. each resource class you want to get at things through. (Though sometimes for really simple ResourceManagers, the derived manager class itself is generated dynamically) It has a method that gives out your base query, and that base query gets filtered for your soft delete before it's handed out. From then on, you can add to that query generatively for filtering, and finally call it with query.one() or first() or all() or count(). Note, there is one gotcha I encountered for this kind of generative query handling, you can hang yourself if you join a table too many times. In some cases for filtering we had to keep track of which tables had already been joined. If your delete filter is off the primary table, just filter that first, and you can join willy nilly after that.
so something like this:
class ResourceManager(object):
# these will get filled in by the derived class
# you could use ABC tools if you want, we don't bother
model_class = None
serializer_class = None
# the resource manager gets instantiated once per request
# and passed the current requests SQAlchemy session
def __init__(self, dbsession):
self.dbs = dbsession
# hand out base query, assumes we have a boolean 'deleted' column
#property
def query(self):
return self.dbs(self.model_class).filter(
getattr(self.model_class, 'deleted')==False)
class UserManager(ResourceManager):
model_class = User
# some client code might look this
dbs = SomeSessionFactoryIHave()
user_manager = UserManager(dbs)
users = user_manager.query.filter_by(name_last="Duncan").first()
Now as long as I always start off by going through a ResourceManager, which has other benefits too (see aforementioned book), I know my query is pre-filtered. This has worked very well for us on a current project that has soft-delete and quite an extensive and thorny db schema.
hth!
I would create a function
def customer_query():
return db.session.query(Customer).filter(Customer.deleted == False)
I used query functions to not forget default flags, to set flags based on user permission, filter using joins etc, so that these things wont be copy-pasted and forgotten at various places.

Default Criteria For Active Record

I have a following question about the best practice for ActiveRecord usage.
My case:
I have a User model which is a normal CActiveRecord.
In many cases I want to have lists of "active" users, defined in the database by WHERE condition "is_active = 1". Besides I want functions find(), findByAttributes(), findByPk() etc. to return the result only if the user is active (for example in "Password request" scenario).
I can always apply this WHERE condition explicitly before using find() functions but I'm searching a way to implement it with less code.
I came to the idea of creating a child class called UserActive and change its constructor like this:
function __construct($scenario='insert') {
parent::__construct($scenario);
$criteria = new CDbCriteria();
$criteria->condition = "is_active = 1";
$this->setDbCriteria($criteria);
}
But I'm not sure if this is a good practice to do this (Since CActiveRecord's constructor asks "Do NOT override the constructor unless it is absolutely necessary!"). Can anyone give advices for this situation?
Try this in your model.
public function defaultScope() {
return array(
'condition'=>'is_active = 1',
);
}
Or define other scope
Yii - using relations with scopes defined in the relation
That's right, you should never override __construct().
You can use model scopes for that. See http://www.yiiframework.com/doc/guide/1.1/en/database.ar#named-scopes

Django REST framework flat, read-write serializer

In Django REST framework, what is involved in creating a flat, read-write serializer representation? The docs refer to a 'flat representation' (end of the section http://django-rest-framework.org/api-guide/serializers.html#dealing-with-nested-objects) but don't offer examples or anything beyond a suggestion to use a RelatedField subclass.
For instance, how to provide a flat representation of the User and UserProfile relationship, below?
# Model
class UserProfile(models.Model):
user = models.OneToOneField(User)
favourite_number = models.IntegerField()
# Serializer
class UserProfileSerializer(serializers.ModelSerializer):
email = serialisers.EmailField(source='user.email')
class Meta:
model = UserProfile
fields = ['id', 'favourite_number', 'email',]
The above UserProfileSerializer doesn't allow writing to the email field, but I hope it expresses the intention sufficiently well. So, how should a 'flat' read-write serializer be constructed to allow a writable email attribute on the UserProfileSerializer? Is it at all possible to do this when subclassing ModelSerializer?
Thanks.
Looking at the Django REST framework (DRF) source I settled on the view that a DRF serializer is strongly tied to an accompanying Model for unserializing purposes. Field's source param make this less so for serializing purposes.
With that in mind, and viewing serializers as encapsulating validation and save behaviour (in addition to their (un)serializing behaviour) I used two serializers: one for each of the User and UserProfile models:
class UserSerializer(serializer.ModelSerializer):
class Meta:
model = User
fields = ['email',]
class UserProfileSerializer(serializer.ModelSerializer):
email = serializers.EmailField(source='user.email')
class Meta:
model = UserProfile
fields = ['id', 'favourite_number', 'email',]
The source param on the EmailField handles the serialization case adequately (e.g. when servicing GET requests). For unserializing (e.g. when serivicing PUT requests) it is necessary to do a little work in the view, combining the validation and save behaviour of the two serializers:
class UserProfileRetrieveUpdate(generics.GenericAPIView):
def get(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
# Only UserProfileSerializer is required to serialize data since
# email is populated by the 'source' param on EmailField.
serializer = UserProfileSerializer(
instance=request.user.get_profile())
return Response(serializer.data)
def put(self, request, *args, **kwargs):
# Both UserSerializer and UserProfileSerializer are required
# in order to validate and save data on their associated models.
user_profile_serializer = UserProfileSerializer(
instance=request.user.get_profile(),
data=request.DATA)
user_serializer = UserSerializer(
instance=request.user,
data=request.DATA)
if user_profile_serializer.is_valid() and user_serializer.is_valid():
user_profile_serializer.save()
user_serializer.save()
return Response(
user_profile_serializer.data, status=status.HTTP_200_OK)
# Combine errors from both serializers.
errors = dict()
errors.update(user_profile_serializer.errors)
errors.update(user_serializer.errors)
return Response(errors, status=status.HTTP_400_BAD_REQUEST)
First: better handling of nested writes is on it's way.
Second: The Serializer Relations docs say of both PrimaryKeyRelatedField and SlugRelatedField that "By default this field is read-write..." — so if your email field was unique (is it?) it might be you could use the SlugRelatedField and it would just work — I've not tried this yet (however).
Third: Instead I've used a plain Field subclass that uses the source="*" technique to accept the whole object. From there I manually pull the related field in to_native and return that — this is read-only. In order to write I've checked request.DATA in post_save and updated the related object there — This isn't automatic but it works.
So, Fourth: Looking at what you've already got, my approach (above) amounts to marking your email field as read-only and then implementing post_save to check for an email value and perform the update accordingly.
Although this does not strictly answer the question - I think it will solve your need. The issue may be more in the split of two models to represent one entity than an issue with DRF.
Since Django 1.5, you can make a custom user, if all you want is some method and extra fields but apart from that you are happy with the Django user, then all you need to do is:
class MyUser(AbstractBaseUser):
favourite_number = models.IntegerField()
and in settings: AUTH_USER_MODEL = 'myapp.myuser'
(And of course a db-migration, which could be made quite simple by using db_table option to point to your existing user table and just add the new columns there).
After that, you have the common case which DRF excels at.

Django aggregate query

I have a model Page, which can have Posts on it. What I want to do is get every Page, plus the most recent Post on that page. If the Page has no Posts, I still want the page. (Sound familiar? This is a LEFT JOIN in SQL).
Here is what I currently have:
Page.objects.annotate(most_recent_post=Max('post__post_time'))
This only gets Pages, but it doesn't get Posts. How can I get the Posts as well?
Models:
class Page(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)
created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add = True)
enabled = models.BooleanField(default = True)
class Post(models.Model):
user = models.ForeignKey(User)
page = models.ForeignKey(Page)
post_time = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add = True)
Depending on the relationship between the two, you should be able to follow the relationships quite easily, and increase performance by using select_related
Taking this:
class Page(models.Model):
...
class Post(models.Model):
page = ForeignKey(Page, ...)
You can follow the forward relationship (i.e. get all the posts and their associated pages) efficiently using select_related:
Post.objects.select_related('page').all()
This will result in only one (larger) query where all the page objects are prefetched.
In the reverse situation (like you have) where you want to get all pages and their associated posts, select_related won't work. See this,this and this question for more information about what you can do.
Probably your best bet is to use the techniques described in the django docs here: Following Links Backward.
After you do:
pages = Page.objects.annotate(most_recent_post=Max('post__post_time'))
posts = [page.post_set.filter(post_time=page.most_recent_post) for page in pages]
And then posts[0] should have the most recent post for pages[0] etc. I don't know if this is the most efficient solution, but this was the solution mentioned in another post about the lack of left joins in django.
You can create a database view that will contain all Page columns alongside with with necessary latest Post columns:
CREATE VIEW `testapp_pagewithrecentpost` AS
SELECT testapp_page.*, testapp_post.* -- I suggest as few post columns as possible here
FROM `testapp_page` LEFT JOIN `testapp_page`
ON test_page.id = test_post.page_id
AND test_post.post_time =
( SELECT MAX(test_post.post_time)
FROM test_post WHERE test_page.id = test_post.page_id );
Then you need to create a model with flag managed = False (so that manage.py sync won't break). You can also use inheritance from abstract Model to avoid column duplication:
class PageWithRecentPost(models.Model): # Or extend abstract BasePost ?
# Page columns goes here
# Post columns goes here
# We use LEFT JOIN, so all columns from the
# 'post' model will need blank=True, null=True
class Meta:
managed = False # Django will not handle creation/reset automatically
By doing that you can do what you initially wanted, so fetch from both tables in just one query:
pages_with_recent_post = PageWithRecentPost.objects.filter(...)
for page in pages_with_recent_post:
print page.name # Page column
print page.post_time # Post column
However this approach is not drawback free:
It's very DB engine-specific
You'll need to add VIEW creation SQL to your project
If your models are complex it's very likely that you'll need to resolve table column name clashes.
Model based on a database view will very likely be read-only (INSERT/UPDATE will fail).
It adds complexity to your project. Allowing for multiple queries is a definitely simpler solution.
Changes in Page/Post will require re-creating the view.

NHibernate Partial Update

Is there a way in NHibernate to start with an unproxied model
var m = new Model() { ID = 1 };
m.Name = "test";
//Model also has .LastName and .Age
Now save this model only updating Name without first selecting the model from the session?
If model has other properties then name, you need to initialize these with the original value in the database, unless they will be set to null.
You can use HQL update operations; I never tried it myself.
You could also use a native SQL statement. ("Update model set name ...").
Usually, this optimization is not needed. There are really rare cases where you need to avoid selecting the data, so writing this SQL statements are just a waste of time. You are using an ORM, this means: write your software object oriented! Unless you won't get much advantages from it.
What Stefan says looks like what you need. Please be aware that this is really an edge case and you should be happy with fully loading your entity unless you have some ultra-high-performance issues.
If you simply don't want to hit the database - try using caching - entity cache is very simple and efficient.
If your entity is a huge one - i.e. it contains a blob or something - think about splitting it in two (with many-to-one so that you can utilize lazy loading).
http://www.hibernate.org/hib_docs/nhibernate/html/mapping.html
dynamic-update (optional, defaults to
false): Specifies that UPDATE SQL
should be generated at runtime and
contain only those columns whose
values have changed.
Place dynamic-update on the class in the HBM.
var m = new Model() { ID = 1 };
m = session.Update(m); //attach m to the session.
m.Name = "test";
session.Save(m);