Search Results

Search found 3554 results on 143 pages for 'django modelformsets'.

Page 28/143 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

• Django 1.2: Dates in admin forms don't work with Locales (I10N=True)

  - by equalium

  I have an application in Django 1.2. Language is selectable (I18N and Locale = True) When I select the english lang. in the site, the admin works OK. But when I change to any other language this is what happens with date inputs (spanish example): Correctly, the input accepts the spanish format %d/%m/%Y (Even selecting from the calendar, the date inserts as expected). But when I save the form and load it again, the date shows in the english form: %Y-%m-%d The real problem is that when I load the form to change any other text field and try to save it I get an error telling me to enter a valid date, so I have to write all dates again or change the language in the site to use the admin. I haven't specified anything for DATE_INPUT_FORMATS in settings nor have I overridden forms or models. Surely I am missing something but I can't find it. Can anybody give me a hint?

  Read the article

• get foreign key objects in a single query - Django

  - by John

  Hi I have 2 models in my django code: class ModelA(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=255) description = models.CharField(max_length=255) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User) class ModelB(models.Model): category = models.CharField(max_length=255) modela_link = models.ForeignKey(ModelA, 'modelb_link') functions = models.CharField(max_length=255) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User) Say ModelA has 100 records, all of which may or may not have links to ModelB Now say I want to get a list of every ModelA record along with the data from ModelB I would do: list_a = ModelA.objects.all() Then to get the data for ModelB I would have to do for i in list_a: i.additional_data = i.modelb_link.all() However this runs a query on every instance of i. Thus making 101 queries to run. Is there any way of running this all in just 1 query. Or at least less than the 101 queries. I've tried putting in ModelA.objects.select_related().all() but this didn't seem to have any effect. Thanks

  Read the article

• Django Template - Convert python list into a javascript object

  - by amcashcow

  I am working on a django / python website I have a page where I want to display a table of search results The list of results is passed in to the template as normal I also want to make this list of objects accessible to the javascript code My first solution was just create another view that returned json format. But each page load required calling the query twice. So then I tried only downloading the data using the json view and printing the table using javascript. but this is also not desirable as now the presentation layer is mixed into the javascript code. is there a way to create a javascript object from the python list as the page is rendered?

  Read the article

• Django: Converting an entire Model into a single dictionary

  - by LarrikJ

  Is there a good way in Django to convert an entire model to a dictionary? I mean, like this: class DictModel(models.Model): key = models.CharField(20) value = models.CharField(200) DictModel.objects.all().to_dict() ... with the result being a dictionary with the key/value pairs made up of records in the Model? Has anyone else seen this as being useful for them? Thanks. Update I just wanted to add is that my ultimate goal is to be able to do a simple variable lookup inside a Template. Something like: {{ DictModel.exampleKey }} With a result of DictModel.objects.get(key__exact=exampleKey).value Overall, though, you guys have really surprised me with how helpful allof your responses are, and how different the ways to approach it can be. Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• Deploying a Django application in a virtual Ubuntu Server

  - by mfsaint

  I have a virtualbox machine running Ubuntu Server 10.04LTS. My intention is to this machine to work like a VPS, this way I can learn and prepare for when I get a VPS service. Apache+mod_wsgi for deploying the Django app seems the right choice to me. I have the domain (marianofalcon.com.ar) but nothing else, no DNS. The problem is that I'm pretty lost with all the deployment stuff. I know how to configure mod_wsgi(with the django.wsgi file) and apache(creating a VirtualHost). Something is missing and I don't know what it is. I think that I lack networking skills ant that's the big problem. Trying to host the app on a virtualbox adds some difficulty because I don't know well what IP to use. This is what I've got: file placed at: /etc/apache2/sites-available: NameVirtualHost *:80 <VirtualHost *:80> ServerAdmin [email protected] ServerName www.my-domain.com ServerAlias my-domain.com Alias /media /path/to/my/project/media DocumentRoot /path/to/my/project WSGIScriptAlias / /path/to/your/project/apache/django.wsgi ErrorLog /var/log/apache2/error.log LogLevel warn CustomLog /var/log/apache2/access.log combined </VirtualHost> django.wsgi file: import os, sys wsgi_dir = os.path.abspath(os.path.dirname(__file__)) project_dir = os.path.dirname(wsgi_dir) sys.path.append(project_dir) project_settings = os.path.join(project_dir,'settings') os.environ['DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE'] = 'myproject.settings' import django.core.handlers.wsgi application = django.core.handlers.wsgi.WSGIHandler()

  Read the article

• Komodo Edit 5.2 Django Template Syntax Error - Info: <head> previously mentioned

  - by Lance McNearney

  I am using Komodo Edit 5.2 for editing html and Django template files. It always shows a single syntax error inside the first {% block %} area on the first tag of my template. For example: {% extends "base.html" %} {% load i18n %} {% block title %}Hello{% endblock %} {% block content %} <p>Hello</p> <-- Syntax error on this single line <p>Other lines have no errors</p> {% endblock %} {% block footer %} <p>No errors here</p> {% endblock %} The syntax error given is: Info: <head> previously mentioned I know for a fact that the error has nothing to do with my <head> tag since it occurs in the base template and in child templates (and the IDE isn't smart enough to process the base templates when in a child, etc.) All of my html tags are closed properly and everything validates for XHTML strict. This forum post mentions a similar problem but offers no solution (and may be specific to Smarty syntax highlighting). Any ideas on how to resolve this error (or disable it from being shown)?

  Read the article

• django-mptt: how to successfully move nodes around

  - by Parand

  django-mptt seems determined to drive me out of my mind. I'm trying to do something relatively simple: I'm going to delete a node, and need to do something reasonable with the node's children. Namely, I'd like to move them up one level so they're children of their current parent's parent. That is, if the tree looks like: Root | Grandpa | Father | | C1 C2 I'm going to delete Father, and would like C1 and C2 to be children of Grandpa. Here's the code I'm using: class Node(models.Model): first_name = models.CharField(max_length=80, blank=True) parent = models.ForeignKey('self', null=True, blank=True, related_name='children') def reparent_children(self, parent): print "Reparenting" for child in self.get_children(): print "Working on", child.first_name, "to parent", parent.email parent = Node.objects.get(id=parent.id) child.move_to(parent, 'last-child') child.save() So I'd call: father.reparent_children(grandpa) father.parent = None father.save() This works - almost. The children report their parents as Grandpa: c1.parent == grandpa # True Grandpa counts C1 and C2 among its children c1 in grandpa.children.all() # True However, Root disowns these kids. c1.get_root() == father # c1's root is father, instead of Root c1 in root.get_descendants() # False How do I get the children to move and their root not get corrupted?

  Read the article

• Limiting choices from an intermediary ManyToMany junction table in Django

  - by Matthew Rankin

  Background I've created three Django models—Inventory, SalesOrder, and Invoice—to model items in inventory, sales orders for those items, and invoices for a particular sales order. Each sales order can have multiple items, so I've used an intermediary junction table—SalesOrderItems—using the through argument for the ManyToManyField. Also, partial billing of a sales orders is allowed, so I've created a ForeignKey in the Invoice model related to the SalesOrder model, so that a particular sales order can have multiple invoices. Here's where I deviate from what I've normally seen. Instead of relating the Invoice model to the Item model via a ManyToManyField, I've related the Invoice model to the SalesOrderItem intermediary junction table through the intermediary junction table InvoiceItem. I've done this because it better models reality—our invoices are tied to sales orders and can only include items that are tied to that sales order as opposed to any item in inventory. I will admit that it does seem strange having the intermediary junction table of a ManyToManyField related to the intermediary junction table of another ManyToManyField. Question How can I limit the choices available for the invoice_items in the Invoice model to just the sales_order_items of the SalesOrder model for that particular Invoice? (I tried using limit_choices_to= {'sales_order': self.invoice.sales_order}) as part of the item = models.ForeignKey(SalesOrderItem) in the InvoiceItem model, but that didn't work. Am I correct in thinking that limiting the choices for the invoice_items should be handled in the model instead of in a form? Code class Item(models.Model): item_num = models.SlugField(unique=True) default_price = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10, decimal_places=2, blank=True, null=True) class SalesOrderItem(models.Model): item = models.ForeignKey(Item) sales_order = models.ForeignKey('SalesOrder') unit_price = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10, decimal_places=2) quantity = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10, decimal_places=4) class SalesOrder(models.Model): customer = models.ForeignKey(Party) so_num = models.SlugField(max_length=40, unique=True) sales_order_items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, through=SalesOrderItem) class InvoiceItem(models.Model): item = models.ForeignKey(SalesOrderItem) invoice = models.ForeignKey('Invoice') unit_price = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10, decimal_places=2) quantity = models.DecimalField(max_digits=10, decimal_places=4) class Invoice(models.Model): invoice_num = models.SlugField(max_length=25) sales_order = models.ForeignKey(SalesOrder) invoice_items = models.ManyToManyField(SalesOrderItem, through='InvoiceItem')

  Read the article

• Left Join with a OneToOne field in Django

  - by jamida

  I have 2 tables, simpleDB_all and simpleDB_some. The "all" table has an entry for every item I want, while the "some" table has entries only for some items that need additional information. The Django models for these are: class all(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=40) important_info = models.CharField(max_length=40) class some(models.Model): all_key = models.OneToOneField(all) extra_info = models.CharField(max_length=40) I'd like to create a view that shows every item in "all" with the extra info if it exists in "some". Since I'm using a 1-1 field I can do this with almost complete success: allitems = all.objects.all() for item in allitems: print item.name, item.important_info, item.some.extra_info but when I get to the item that doesn't have a corresponding entry in the "some" table I get a DoesNotExist exception. Ideally I'd be doing this loop inside a template, so it's impossible to wrap it around a "try" clause. Any thoughts? I can get the desired effect directly in SQL using a query like this: SELECT all.name, all.important_info, some.extra_info FROM all LEFT JOIN some ON all.id = some.all_key_id; But I'd rather not use raw SQL.

  Read the article

• Custom template for Django's comments application does not display fields

  - by Jannis

  Hi, I want to use django.contrib.comments in a blogging application and customize the way the form is displayed. My problem is that I can't get the fields to display although displaying the hidden fields works just fine. I had a look at the docs and compared it with the regular way of displaying forms but honestly I don't know why the following doesn't work out: {% get_comment_form for comments_object as form %} <form action="{% comment_form_target %}" method="POST"> […] {% for hidden in form.hidden_fields %} {{ hidden }} {% endfor %} {% for field in form.fields %} {{field}} {% endfor %} […] </form> The output looks like this: <form action="/comments/post/" method="POST"> <input type="hidden" name="content_type" value="flatpages.flatpage" id="id_content_type" /> <input type="hidden" name="object_pk" value="1" id="id_object_pk" /> <input type="hidden" name="timestamp" value="1269522506" id="id_timestamp" /> <input type="hidden" name="security_hash" value="ec4…0fd" id="id_security_hash" /> content_type object_pk timestamp security_hash name email url comment honeypot […] </form> </div> Can you tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• Django: how to cleanup form fields and avoid code duplication

  - by Alexander Konstantinov

  Quite often I need to filter some form data before using it (saving to database etc.) Let's say I want to strip whitespaces and replace repeating whitespaces with a single one in most of the text fields, in many forms. It's not difficult to do this using clean_<fieldname> methods: # Simplified model with two text fields class MyModel(models.Model): title = models.CharField() description = models.CharField() # Model-based form class MyForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = MyModel def clean_title(self): title = self.cleaned_data['title'] return re.sub(r'\s{2,}', ' ', title.strip()) def clean_description(self): description = self.cleaned_data['description'] return re.sub(r'\s{2,}', ' ', description.strip()) It does exactly what I need, and has a nice side effect which I like: if user enters only whitespaces, the field will be considered empty and therefore invalid (if it is required) and I don't even have to throw a ValidationError. The obvious problem here is code duplication. Even if I'll create some function for that, say my_text_filter, I'll have to call it for every text field in all my forms: from myproject.filters import my_text_filter class MyForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = MyModel def clean_title(self): return my_text_filter(self.cleaned_data['title']) def clean_description(self): return my_text_filter(self.cleaned_data['description']) The question: is there any standard and simple way in Django (I use version 1.2 if that matters) to do this (like, for example, by adding property validators = {'title': my_text_filter, 'description': my_text_filter} to MyModel), or at least some more or less standard workaround? I've read about form validation and validators in the documentation, but couldn't find what I need there.

  Read the article

• Practiaal rules for Django MiddleWare ordering?

  - by o_O Tync

  The official documentation is a bit messy: 'before' & 'after' are used for ordering MiddleWare in a tuple, but in some places 'before'&'after' refers to request-response phases. Also, 'should be first/last' are mixed and it's not clear which one to use as 'first'. I do understand the difference.. however it seems to complicated for a newbie in Django. Can you suggest some correct ordering for builtin MiddleWare classes (assuming we enable all of them) and — most importantly — explain WHY one goes before/after other ones? here's the list, with the info from docs I managed to find: UpdateCacheMiddleware Before those that modify 'Vary:' SessionMiddleware, GZipMiddleware, LocaleMiddleware GZipMiddleware Before any MW that may change or use the response body After UpdateCacheMiddleware: Modifies 'Vary:' ConditionalGetMiddleware Before CommonMiddleware: uses its 'Etag:' header when USE_ETAGS=True SessionMiddleware After UpdateCacheMiddleware: Modifies 'Vary:' Before TransactionMiddleware: we don't need transactions here LocaleMiddleware, One of the topmost, after SessionMiddleware, CacheMiddleware After UpdateCacheMiddleware: Modifies 'Vary:' After SessionMiddleware: uses session data CommonMiddleware Before any MW that may change the response (it calculates ETags) After GZipMiddleware so it won't calculate an E-Tag on gzipped contents Close to the top: it redirects when APPEND_SLASH or PREPEND_WWW CsrfViewMiddleware AuthenticationMiddleware After SessionMiddleware: uses session storage MessageMiddleware After SessionMiddleware: can use Session-based storage XViewMiddleware TransactionMiddleware After MWs that use DB: SessionMiddleware (configurable to use DB) All *CacheMiddleWare is not affected (as an exception: uses own DB cursor) FetchFromCacheMiddleware After those those that modify 'Vary:' if uses them to pick a value for cache hash-key After AuthenticationMiddleware so it's possible to use CACHE_MIDDLEWARE_ANONYMOUS_ONLY FlatpageFallbackMiddleware Bottom: last resort Uses DB, however, is not a problem for TransactionMiddleware (yes?) RedirectFallbackMiddleware Bottom: last resort Uses DB, however, is not a problem for TransactionMiddleware (yes?) (I will add suggestions to this list to collect all of them in one place)

  Read the article

• Django forms: how to dynamically create ModelChoiceField labels

  - by Henri

  I would like to create dynamic labels for a forms.ModelChoiceField and I'm wondering how to do that. I have the following form class: class ProfileForm(forms.ModelForm): def __init__(self, data=None, ..., language_code='en', family_name_label='Family name', horoscope_label='Horoscope type', *args, **kwargs): super(ProfileForm, self).__init__(data, *args, **kwargs) self.fields['family_name'].label = family_name_label . . self.fields['horoscope'].label = horoscope_label self.fields['horoscope'].queryset = Horoscope.objects.all() class Meta: model = Profile family_name = forms.CharField(widget=forms.TextInput(attrs={'size':'80', 'class': 'contact_form'})) . . horoscope = forms.ModelChoiceField(queryset = Horoscope.objects.none(), widget=forms.RadioSelect(), empty_label=None) The default labels are defined by the unicode function specified in the Profile definition. However the labels for the radio buttons created by the ModelChoiceField need to be created dynamically. First I thought I could simply override ModelChoiceField as described in the Django documentation. But that creates static labels. It allows you to define any label but once the choice is made, that choice is fixed. So I think I need to adapt add something to init like: class ProfileForm(forms.ModelForm): def __init__(self, data=None, ..., language_code='en', family_name_label='Family name', horoscope_label='Horoscope type', *args, **kwargs): super(ProfileForm, self).__init__(data, *args, **kwargs) self.fields['family_name'].label = family_name_label . . self.fields['horoscope'].label = horoscope_label self.fields['horoscope'].queryset = Horoscope.objects.all() self.fields['horoscope'].<WHAT>??? = ??? Anyone having any idea how to handle this? Any help would be appreciated very much.

  Read the article

• Django Template For Loop Removing <img> Self-Closing

  - by Zack

  Django's for loop seems to be removing all of my <img> tag's self-closing...ness (/>). In the Template, I have this code: {% for item in item_list %} <li> <a class="left" href="{{ item.url }}">{{ item.name }}</a> <a class="right" href="{{ item.url }}"> <img src="{{ item.icon.url }}" alt="{{ item.name }} Logo." /> </a> </li> {% endfor %} It outputs this: <li> <a class="left" href="/some-url/">This is an item</a> <a class="right" href="/some-url/"> <img src="/media/img/some-item.jpg" alt="This is an item Logo."> </a> </li> As you can see, the <img> tag is no longer closed, and thus the page doesn't validate. This isn't a huge issue since it'll still render properly in all browsers, but I'd like to know how to solve it. I've tried wrapping the whole for loop in {% autoescape off %}...{% endautoescape %} but that didn't change anything. All other self-closed <img> tags in the document outside the for loop still properly close.

  Read the article

• Custom Django Field is deciding to work as ForiegnKey for no reason

  - by Joe Simpson

  Hi, i'm making a custom field in Django. There's a problem while trying to save it, it's supposed to save values like this 'user 5' and 'status 9' but instead in the database these fields show up as just the number. Here is the code for the field: def find_key(dic, val): return [k for k, v in dic.items() if v == val][0] class ConnectionField(models.TextField): __metaclass__ = models.SubfieldBase serialize = False description = 'Provides a connection for an object like User, Page, Group etc.' def to_python(self, value): if type(value) != unicode: return value value = value.split(" ") if value[0] == "user": return User.objects.get(pk=value[1]) else: from social.models import connections return get_object_or_404(connections[value[0]], pk=value[1]) def get_prep_value(self, value): from social.models import connections print value, "prep" if type(value) == User: return "user %s" % str(value.pk) elif type(value) in connections.values(): o= "%s %s" % (find_key(connections, type(value)), str(value.pk)) print o, "return" return o else: print "CONNECTION ERROR!" raise TypeError("Value is not connectable!") Connection is just a dictionary with the "status" text linked up to the model for a StatusUpdate. I'm saving a model like this which is causing the issue: Relationship.objects.get_or_create(type="feedback",from_user=request.user,to_user=item) Please can someone help, Many Thanks Joe *_*

  Read the article

• Suggestions for a django db structure

  - by rh0dium

  Hi Say I have the unknown number of questions. For example: Is the sky blue [y/n] What date were your born on [date] What is pi [3.14] What is a large integ [100] Now each of these questions poses a different but very type specific answer (boolean, date, float, int). Natively django can happily deal with these in a model. class SkyModel(models.Model): question = models.CharField("Is the sky blue") answer = models.BooleanField(default=False) class BirthModel(models.Model): question = models.CharField("What date were your born on") answer = models.DateTimeField(default=today) class PiModel(models.Model) question = models.CharField("What is pi") answer = models.FloatField() But this has the obvious problem in that each question has a specific model - so if we need to add a question later I have to change the database. Yuck. So now I want to get fancy - How do a set up a model where by the answer type conversion happens automagically? ANSWER_TYPES = ( ('boolean', 'boolean'), ('date', 'date'), ('float', 'float'), ('int', 'int'), ('char', 'char'), ) class Questions(models.model): question = models.CharField(() answer = models.CharField() answer_type = models.CharField(choices = ANSWER_TYPES) default = models.CharField() So in theory this would do the following: When I build up my views I look at the type of answer and ensure that I only put in that value. But when I want to pull that answer back out it will return the data in the format specified by the answer_type. Example 3.14 comes back out as a float not as a str. How can I perform this sort of automagic transformation? Or can someone suggest a better way to do this? Thanks much!!

  Read the article

• Django Many-to-Many Question

  - by DZ

  My questions seems like a common problem that when I have seen any questions on it is never really asked right or not answered. So Im going to try to get the question right, and maybe someone knows how to resolve the issue, or correct my understanding. The problem: When you have a many-to-many relation ship (related_name not through) and you are trying to use the admin interface you are required to input one of the rleationships even though it does not have to exsist for you to create the first entry. Meaning you have to assign a group to an event to create the group. Wow that sounds complicated. So I can see why the question is not getting answered. Lets try the non code explanation example... First and important versions: Django 1.1.1 Phython 2.6 So I have a model where I created a many-to-many realtionship and Im using the related_name Im creating an app that is an event organizer, for simplicty lets say events although they could be anytype). For this first post Im going to stay away from the code and just try to explain. A few keys: (explaining comment) ** - many-to-many So in the model we have 1) The Main Event (this is main model) 2) Groups (link to events and their can be many events for a group) a) Events** I have simplified this example a little becuase I recognize that what does it matter. Just create the event first... But there are specific varations where that will not work. What the many-to-many related_name does it created another table with the indecies of the two other tables. Nothing says that this extra table HAS to be populated. Becuase if I look in the database and work within myPHPadmin I can create a group with out registering an event, since the connection between the two is a seperate table the DB does not care. How do I make the admin interface this realize it? Ok I know thats a lot so I hope I have explained it clearly. Thank you anyone for your comments/thoughts/advice

  Read the article

• Reordering fields in Django model

  - by Alex Lebedev

  I want to add few fields to every model in my django application. This time it's created_at, updated_at and notes. Duplicating code for every of 20+ models seems dumb. So, I decided to use abstract base class which would add these fields. The problem is that fields inherited from abstract base class come first in the field list in admin. Declaring field order for every ModelAdmin class is not an option, it's even more duplicate code than with manual field declaration. In my final solution, I modified model constructor to reorder fields in _meta before creating new instance: class MyModel(models.Model): # Service fields notes = my_fields.NotesField() created_at = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) updated_at = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) class Meta: abstract = True last_fields = ("notes", "created_at", "updated_at") def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): new_order = [f.name for f in self._meta.fields] for field in self.last_fields: new_order.remove(field) new_order.append(field) self._meta._field_name_cache.sort(key=lambda x: new_order.index(x.name)) super(TwangooModel, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) class ModelA(MyModel): field1 = models.CharField() field2 = models.CharField() #etc ... It works as intended, but I'm wondering, is there a better way to acheive my goal?

  Read the article

• Django Admin Running Same Query Thousands of Times for Model

  - by Tom

  Running into an odd . . . loop when trying to view a model in the Django admin. I have three related models (code trimmed for brevity, hopefully I didn't trim something I shouldn't have): class Association(models.Model): somecompany_entity_id = models.CharField(max_length=10, db_index=True) name = models.CharField(max_length=200) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class ResidentialUnit(models.Model): building = models.CharField(max_length=10) app_number = models.CharField(max_length=10) unit_number = models.CharField(max_length=10) unit_description = models.CharField(max_length=100, blank=True) association = models.ForeignKey(Association) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) updated = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) def __unicode__(self): return '%s: %s, Unit %s' % (self.association, self.building, self.unit_number) class Resident(models.Model): unit = models.ForeignKey(ResidentialUnit) type = models.CharField(max_length=20, blank=True, default='') lookup_key = models.CharField(max_length=200) jenark_id = models.CharField(max_length=20, blank=True) user = models.ForeignKey(User) is_association_admin = models.BooleanField(default=False, db_index=True) show_in_contact_list = models.BooleanField(default=False, db_index=True) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) updated = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) _phones = {} home_phone = None work_phone = None cell_phone = None app_number = None account_cache_key = None def __unicode__(self): return '%s' % self.user.get_full_name() It's the last model that's causing the problem. Trying to look at a Resident in the admin takes 10-20 seconds. If I take 'self.association' out of the __unicode__ method for ResidentialUnit, a resident page renders pretty quickly. Looking at it in the debug toolbar, without the association name in ResidentialUnit (which is a foreign key on Resident), the page runs 14 queries. With the association name put back in, it runs a far more impressive 4,872 queries. The strangest part is the extra queries all seem to be looking up the association name. They all come from the same line, the __unicode__ method for ResidentialUnit. Each one is the exact same thing, e.g., SELECT `residents_association`.`id`, `residents_association`.`jenark_entity_id`, `residents_association`.`name` FROM `residents_association` WHERE `residents_association`.`id` = 1096 ORDER BY `residents_association`.`name` ASC I assume I've managed to create a circular reference, but if it were truly circular, it would just die, not run 4000x and then return. Having trouble finding a good Google or StackOverflow result for this.

  Read the article

• Refactoring a custom User model to user UserProfile: Should I create a custom UserManager or add use

  - by BryanWheelock

  I have been refactoring an app that had customized the standard User model from django.contrib.auth.models by creating a UserProfile and defining it with AUTH_PROFILE_MODULE. The problem is the attributes in UserProfile are used throughout the project to determine the User sees. I had been creating tests and putting in this type of statement repeatedly: user = User.objects.get(pk=1) user_profile = user.get_profile() if user_profile.karma > 10: do_some_stuff() This is tedious and I'm now wondering if I'm violating the DRY principle. Would it make more sense to create a custom UserManager that automatically loads the UserProfile data when the user is requested. I could even iterate over the UserProfile attributes and append them to the User model. This would save me having to update all the references to the custom model attributes that litter the code. Of course, I'd have to reverse to process for to allow the User and UserProfile models to be updated correctly. Which approach is more Django-esque?

  Read the article

• Parameterized Django models

  - by mgibsonbr

  In principle, a single Django application can be reused in two or more projects, providing functionality relevent to both. That implies that the same database structure (tables and relations) will be re-created identically in different databases, and most times this is not a problem (assuming the projects/databases are unrelated - for instance when someone downloads a complete app to use in their own projects). Sometimes, however, the models must be "tweaked" a little to better fit the problem needs. This can be accomplished by forking the app, but I wondered if there wouldn't be a better option in cases where the app designer can anticipate the most common customizations. For instance, if I have a model that could relate to another as one-to-one or one-to-many, I could specify the unique property as a parameter, that can be specified in the project's settings: class This(models.Model): other = models.ForeignKey(Other, unique=settings.OTHER_TO_THIS) Or if a model can relate to many others, I could create an intermediate table for each of them (thus enforcing referential integrity) instead of using generic fks: for related in settings.MODELS_RELATED_TO_OTHER: model_name = '%s_Other' % related globals()[model_name] = type(model_name, (models.Model,) { me:models.ForeignKey(find_model_class(related)), other:models.ForeignKey(Other), # Some other properties all intersection tables must have }) Etc. Let me stress out that I'm not proposing to change the models at runtime nor anything like that; once the parameters were defined and syncdb called for the first time, those parameters are not to be changed again (unless you're doing a schema migration). Is this a good design? Are there better ways to accomplish the same thing, or maybe drawbacks I coulnd't anticipate? This technique is meant to be used sparingly (only on apps meant to be reused in wildly different contexts, and only when a specific need of customization can be detected while the app model is being designed).

  Read the article

• Authenticate with Django 1.5

  - by gorjuce

  I'm currently testing django 1.5 and a custom User model, but I've some problems. I've created a User class in my account app, which looks like: class User(AbstractBaseUser): email = models.EmailField() activation_key = models.CharField(max_length=255) is_active = models.BooleanField(default=False) is_admin = models.BooleanField(default=False) USERNAME_FIELD = 'email' I can correctly register a user, who is stored in my account_user table. Now, how can I log in? I've tried with: def login(request): form = AuthenticationForm() if request.method == 'POST': form = AuthenticationForm(request.POST) email = request.POST['username'] password = request.POST['password'] user = authenticate(username=email, password=password) if user is not None: if user.is_active: login(user) else: message = 'disabled account, check validation email' return render( request, 'account-login-failed.html', {'message': message} ) return render(request, 'account-login.html', {'form': form}) I can correctly register a new User My forms.py which contains my register form class RegisterForm(forms.ModelForm): """ a form to create user""" password = forms.CharField( label="Password", widget=forms.PasswordInput() ) password_confirm = forms.CharField( label="Password Repeat", widget=forms.PasswordInput() ) class Meta: model = User exclude = ('last_login', 'activation_key') def clean_password_confirm(self): password = self.cleaned_data.get("password") password_confirm = self.cleaned_data.get("password_confirm") if password and password_confirm and password != password_confirm: raise forms.ValidationError("Password don't math") return password_confirm def clean_email(self): if User.objects.filter(email__iexact=self.cleaned_data.get("email")): raise forms.ValidationError("email already exists") return self.cleaned_data['email'] def save(self): user = super(RegisterForm, self).save(commit=False) user.password = self.cleaned_data['password'] user.activation_key = generate_sha1(user.email) user.save() return user My question is: Why does authenticate give me None? I know I'm trying to authenticate() with an email as username but is that not one of the reasons to use a custom User model?

  Read the article

• Adding a generic image field onto a ModelForm in django

  - by Prairiedogg

  I have two models, Room and Image. Image is a generic model that can tack onto any other model. I want to give users a form to upload an image when they post information about a room. I've written code that works, but I'm afraid I've done it the hard way, and specifically in a way that violates DRY. Was hoping someone who's a little more familiar with django forms could point out where I've gone wrong. Update: I've tried to clarify why I chose this design in comments to the current answers. To summarize: I didn't simply put an ImageField on the Room model because I wanted more than one image associated with the Room model. I chose a generic Image model because I wanted to add images to several different models. The alternatives I considered were were multiple foreign keys on a single Image class, which seemed messy, or multiple Image classes, which I thought would clutter my schema. I didn't make this clear in my first post, so sorry about that. Seeing as none of the answers so far has addressed how to make this a little more DRY I did come up with my own solution which was to add the upload path as a class attribute on the image model and reference that every time it's needed. # Models class Image(models.Model): content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType) object_id = models.PositiveIntegerField() content_object = generic.GenericForeignKey('content_type', 'object_id') image = models.ImageField(_('Image'), height_field='', width_field='', upload_to='uploads/images', max_length=200) class Room(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=50) image_set = generic.GenericRelation('Image') # The form class AddRoomForm(forms.ModelForm): image_1 = forms.ImageField() class Meta: model = Room # The view def handle_uploaded_file(f): # DRY violation, I've already specified the upload path in the image model upload_suffix = join('uploads/images', f.name) upload_path = join(settings.MEDIA_ROOT, upload_suffix) destination = open(upload_path, 'wb+') for chunk in f.chunks(): destination.write(chunk) destination.close() return upload_suffix def add_room(request, apartment_id, form_class=AddRoomForm, template='apartments/add_room.html'): apartment = Apartment.objects.get(id=apartment_id) if request.method == 'POST': form = form_class(request.POST, request.FILES) if form.is_valid(): room = form.save() image_1 = form.cleaned_data['image_1'] # Instead of writing a special function to handle the image, # shouldn't I just be able to pass it straight into Image.objects.create # ...but it doesn't seem to work for some reason, wrong syntax perhaps? upload_path = handle_uploaded_file(image_1) image = Image.objects.create(content_object=room, image=upload_path) return HttpResponseRedirect(room.get_absolute_url()) else: form = form_class() context = {'form': form, } return direct_to_template(request, template, extra_context=context)

  Read the article

• Django admin fails when using includes in urlpatterns

  - by zenWeasel

  I am trying to refactor out my application a little bit to keep it from getting too unwieldily. So I started to move some of the urlpatterns out to sub files as the documentation proposes. Besides that fact that it just doesn't seem to be working (the items are not being rerouted) but when I go to the admin, it says that 'urlpatterns has not been defined'. The urls.py I have at the root of my application is: if settings.ENABLE_SSL: urlpatterns = patterns('', (r'^checkout/orderform/onepage/(\w*)/$','checkout.views.one_page_orderform',{'SSL':True},'commerce.checkout.views.single_product_orderform'), ) else: urlpatterns = patterns('', (r'^checkout/orderform/onepage/(\w*)/$','commerce.checkout.views.single_product_orderform'), ) urlpatterns+= patterns('', (r'^$', 'alchemysites.views.route_to_home'), (r'^%s/' % settings.DAJAXICE_MEDIA_PREFIX, include('dajaxice.urls')), (r'^/checkout/', include('commerce.urls')), (r'^/offers',include('commerce.urls')), (r'^/order/',include('commerce.urls')), (r'^admin/', include(admin.site.urls)), (r'^accounts/login/$', login), (r'^accounts/logout/$', logout), (r'^(?P<path>.*)/$','alchemysites.views.get_path'), (r'^static/(?P<path>.*)$', 'django.views.static.serve', {'document_root':settings.MEDIA_ROOT}), The urls I have moved out so far are the checkout/offers/order which are all subapps of 'commerce' where the urls.py for the apps are so to be clear. /urls.py in questions (included here) /commerce/urls.py where the urls.py I want to include is: order_info = { 'queryset': Order.objects.all(), } urlpatterns+= patterns('', (r'^offers/$','offers.views.start_offers'), (r'^offers/([a-zA-Z0-9-]*)/order/(\d*)/add/([a-zA-Z0-9-]*)/(\w*)/next/([a-zA-Z0-9-)/$','offers.views.show_offer'), (r'^reports/orders/$', list_detail.object_list,order_info), ) and the applications offers lies under commerce. And so the additional problem is that admin will not work at all, so I'm thinking because I killed it somewhere with my includes. Things I have checked for: Is the urlpatterns variable accidentally getting reset somewhere (i.e. urlpatterns = patterns, instead of urlpatterns+= patterns) Are the patterns in commerce.urls valid (yes, when moved back to root they work). So from there I am stumped. I can move everything back into the root, but was trying to get a little decoupled, not just for theoretical reason but for some short terms ones. Lastly if I enter www.domainname/checkout/orderform/onepage/xxxjsd I get the correct page. However, entering www.domainname/checkout/ gets handled by the alchemysites.views.get_path. If not the answer (because this is pretty darn specific), then is there a good way for troubleshoot urls.py? It seems to just be trial and error. Seems there should be some sort of parser that will tell you what your urlpatterns will do.

  Read the article

• Unit testing in Django

  - by acjohnson55

  I'm really struggling to write effective unit tests for a large Django project. I have reasonably good test coverage, but I've come to realize that the tests I've been writing are definitely integration/acceptance tests, not unit tests at all, and I have critical portions of my application that are not being tested effectively. I want to fix this ASAP. Here's my problem. My schema is deeply relational, and heavily time-oriented, giving my model object high internal coupling and lots of state. Many of my model methods query based on time intervals, and I've got a lot of auto_now_add going on in timestamped fields. So take a method that looks like this for example: def summary(self, startTime=None, endTime=None): # ... logic to assign a proper start and end time # if none was provided, probably using datetime.now() objects = self.related_model_set.manager_method.filter(...) return sum(object.key_method(startTime, endTime) for object in objects) How does one approach testing something like this? Here's where I am so far. It occurs to me that the unit testing objective should be given some mocked behavior by key_method on its arguments, is summary correctly filtering/aggregating to produce a correct result? Mocking datetime.now() is straightforward enough, but how can I mock out the rest of the behavior? I could use fixtures, but I've heard pros and cons of using fixtures for building my data (poor maintainability being a con that hits home for me). I could also setup my data through the ORM, but that can be limiting, because then I have to create related objects as well. And the ORM doesn't let you mess with auto_now_add fields manually. Mocking the ORM is another option, but not only is it tricky to mock deeply nested ORM methods, but the logic in the ORM code gets mocked out of the test, and mocking seems to make the test really dependent on the internals and dependencies of the function-under-test. The toughest nuts to crack seem to be the functions like this, that sit on a few layers of models and lower-level functions and are very dependent on the time, even though these functions may not be super complicated. My overall problem is that no matter how I seem to slice it, my tests are looking way more complex than the functions they are testing.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >