Search Results

Search found 6723 results on 269 pages for 'django models'.

Page 32/269 | < Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >

  • Google App Engine with local Django 1.1 gets Intermittent Failures

    - by Jon Watte
    I'm using the Windows Launcher development environment for Google App Engine. I have downloaded Django 1.1.2 source, and un-tarrred the "django" subdirectory to live within my application directory (a peer of app.yaml) At the top of each .py source file, I do this: import settings import os os.environ["DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE"] = 'settings' In my file settings.py (which lives at the root of the app directory, as well), I do this: DEBUG = True TEMPLATE_DIRS = ('html') INSTALLED_APPS = ('filters') import os os.environ["DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE"] = 'settings' from google.appengine.dist import use_library use_library('django', '1.1') from django.template import loader Yes, this looks a bit like overkill, doesn't it? I only use django.template. I don't explicitly use any other part of django. However, intermittently I get one of two errors: 1) Django complains that DJANGO_SETTINGS_MODULE is not defined. 2) Django complains that common.html (a template I'm extending in other templates) doesn't exist. 95% of the time, these errors are not encountered, and they randomly just start happening. Once in that state, the local server seems "wedged" and re-booting it generally fixes it. What's causing this to happen, and what can I do about it? How can I even debug it? Here is the traceback from the error: Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:\code\kwbudget\edit_budget.py", line 34, in get self.response.out.write(t.render(template.Context(values))) File "C:\code\kwbudget\django\template\__init__.py", line 165, in render return self.nodelist.render(context) File "C:\code\kwbudget\django\template\__init__.py", line 784, in render bits.append(self.render_node(node, context)) File "C:\code\kwbudget\django\template\__init__.py", line 797, in render_node return node.render(context) File "C:\code\kwbudget\django\template\loader_tags.py", line 71, in render compiled_parent = self.get_parent(context) File "C:\code\kwbudget\django\template\loader_tags.py", line 66, in get_parent raise TemplateSyntaxError, "Template %r cannot be extended, because it doesn't exist" % parent TemplateSyntaxError: Template u'common.html' cannot be extended, because it doesn't exist And edit_budget.py starts with exactly the lines that I included up top. All templates live in a directory named "html" in my root directory, and "html/common.html" exists. I know the template engine finds them, because I start out with "html/edit_budget.html" which extends common.html. It looks as if the settings module somehow isn't applied (because that's what adds html to the search path for templates).

    Read the article

  • django & postgres linux hosting (with SSH access) recommendations

    - by Justin Grant
    We're looking for a good place to host our custom Django app (a fork of OSQA) and its postgresql backend. Requirements include: Linux Python 2.6 or (ideally) Python 2.7 Django 1.2 Postgres 8.4 or later DB backup/restore handled by the hoster, not us OS & dev-platform-stack patching/maintenance handled by the hoster, not us SSH access (so we can pull source code from GitHub, so we can install python eggs, etc.) ability to set up cron jobs (e.g. to send out dail email updates) ability to send up to 10K emails/day good performance (not ganged up with a zillion other sites on one CPU, not starved for RAM) FTP or SCP access to web logs dedicated public IP SSL support Costs under $1000/month for a relatively small site (<5M pageviews/month) Good customer service We already have a prototype site running on EC2 on top of a Bitnami DjangoStack. The problem is that we have to patch the OS, patch postgres, etc. We'd really prefer a platform-as-a-service (PaaS) offering, like Heroku offers for Rails apps, where all we need to worry about is deploying our code instead of worrying about system software patching and maintenance. Google App Engine is closest to what we're looking for, but they don't offer relational DB access (not yet at least). Anyone have a recommendation?

    Read the article

  • Right way to return proxy model instance from a base model instance in Django ?

    - by sotangochips
    Say I have models: class Animal(models.Model): type = models.CharField(max_length=255) class Dog(Animal): def make_sound(self): print "Woof!" class Meta: proxy = True class Cat(Animal): def make_sound(self): print "Meow!" class Meta: proxy = True Let's say I want to do: animals = Animal.objects.all() for animal in animals: animal.make_sound() I want to get back a series of Woofs and Meows. Clearly, I could just define a make_sound in the original model that forks based on animal_type, but then every time I add a new animal type (imagine they're in different apps), I'd have to go in and edit that make_sound function. I'd rather just define proxy models and have them define the behavior themselves. From what I can tell, there's no way of returning mixed Cat or Dog instances, but I figured maybe I could define a "get_proxy_model" method on the main class that returns a cat or a dog model. Surely you could do this, and pass something like the primary key and then just do Cat.objects.get(pk = passed_in_primary_key). But that'd mean doing an extra query for data you already have which seems redundant. Is there any way to turn an animal into a cat or a dog instance in an efficient way? What's the right way to do what I want to achieve?

    Read the article

  • What is the best / proper idiom in django for modifying a field during a .save() where you need to o

    - by MDBGuy
    Hi, say I've got: class LogModel(models.Model): message = models.CharField(max_length=512) class Assignment(models.Model): someperson = models.ForeignKey(SomeOtherModel) def save(self, *args, **kwargs): super(Assignment, self).save() old_person = #????? LogModel(message="%s is no longer assigned to %s"%(old_person, self).save() LogModel(message="%s is now assigned to %s"%(self.someperson, self).save() My goal is to save to LogModel some messages about who Assignment was assigned to. Notice that I need to know the old, presave value of this field. I have seen code that suggests, before super().save(), retrieve the instance from the database via primary key and grab the old value from there. This could work, but is a bit messy. In addition, I plan to eventually split this code out of the .save() method via signals - namely pre_save() and post_save(). Trying to use the above logic (Retrieve from the db in pre_save, make the log entry in post_save) seemingly fails here, as pre_save and post_save are two seperate methods. Perhaps in pre_save I can retrieve the old value and stick it on the model as an attribute? I was wondering if there was a common idiom for this. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Using map() on a _set in a template?

    - by Stuart Grimshaw
    I have two models like this: class KPI(models.Model): """KPI model to hold the basic info on a Key Performance Indicator""" title = models.CharField(blank=False, max_length=100) description = models.TextField(blank=True) target = models.FloatField(blank=False, null=False) group = models.ForeignKey(KpiGroup) subGroup = models.ForeignKey(KpiSubGroup, null=True) unit = models.TextField(blank=True) owner = models.ForeignKey(User) bt_measure = models.BooleanField(default=False) class KpiHistory(models.Model): """A historical log of previous KPI values.""" kpi = models.ForeignKey(KPI) measure = models.FloatField(blank=False, null=False) kpi_date = models.DateField() and I'm using RGraph to display the stats on internal wallboards, the handy thing is Python lists get output in a format that Javascript sees as an array, so by mapping all the values into a list like this: def f(x): return float(x.measure) stats = map(f, KpiHistory.objects.filter(kpi=1) then in the template I can simply use {{ stats }} and the RGraph code sees it as an array which is exactly what I want. [87.0, 87.5, 88.5, 90] So my question is this, is there any way I can achieve the same effect using Django's _set functionality to keep the amount of data I'm passing into the template, up until now I've been passing in a single KPI object to be graphed but now I want to pass in a whole bunch so is there anything I can do with _set {{ kpi.kpihistory_set }} dumps the whole model out, but I just want the measure field. I can't see any of the built in template methods that will let me pull out just the single field I want. How have other people handled this situation?

    Read the article

  • What kind of data do I pass into a Django Model.save() method?

    - by poswald
    Lets say that we are getting POSTed a form like this in Django: rate=10 items= [23,12,31,52,83,34] The items are primary keys of an Item model. I have a bunch of business logic that will run and create more items based on this data, the results of some db lookups, and some business logic. I want to put that logic into a save signal or an overridden Model.save() method of another model (let's call it Inventory). The business logic will run when I create a new Inventory object using this form data. Inventory will look like this: class Inventory(models.Model): picked_items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name="items_picked_set") calculated_items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name="items_calculated_set") rate = models.DecimalField() ... other fields here ... New calculated_items will be created based on the passed in items which will be stored as picked_items. My question is this: is it better for the save() method on this model to accept: the request object (I don't really like this coupling) the form data as arguments or kwargs (a list of primary keys and the other form fields) a list of Items (The caller form or view will lookup the list of Items and create a list as well as pass in the other form fields) some other approach? I know this is a bit subjective, but I was wondering what the general idea is. I've looked through a lot of code but I'm having a hard time finding a pattern I like.

    Read the article

  • Django running on Apache+WSGI and apache SSL proxying

    - by Lessfoe
    Hi all, I'm trying to rewrite all requests for my Django server running on apache+WSGI ( inside my local network) and configured as the WSGI's wiki how to, except that I set a virtualhost for it. The server which from I want to rewrite requests is another apache server listening on port 80. I can manage it to work well if I don't try to enable SSL connection as the required way to connect. But I need all requests to Django server encrypted with SSL so I generally used this directive to achieve this ( on my public webserver ): Alias /dirname "/var/www/dirname" SSLVerifyClient none SSLOptions +FakeBasicAuth SSLRequireSSL AuthName "stuff name" AuthType Basic AuthUserFile /etc/httpd/djangoserver.passwd require valid-user # redirect all request to django.test:80 RewriteEngine On RewriteRule (.*)$ http://django.test/$1 [P] This configuration works if I try to load a specific page trough the external server from my browser. It is not working clicking my django application urls ( even tough the url seems correct when I put my mouse over). The url my public server is trying to serve use http ( instead of https ) and the directory "dirname" I specified on my apache configuration disappear, so it says that the page was not found. I think it depends on Django and its WSGI handler . Does anybody went trough my same problem? PS: I have already tried to modify the WSGI script . I'm Using Django 1.0.3, Apache 2.2 on a Fedora10 (inside), Apache 2.2 on the public server. Thanks in advance for your help. Fab

    Read the article

  • counter_cache rails a child creation should increment the count intwo different models based on cond

    - by aditi-syal
    Hi, I have 3 models Recommendation Job Qualification Recommendation model has two fields as work_type and work_id(foreign key for job/qualification based on work_type as "J"/"Q") I am facing problem in using counter_cache I have done this in recommendation.rb belongs_to :job , :counter_cache = true, :foreign_key = "work_id" belongs_to :qualification , :counter_cache = true, :foreign_key = "work_id" and in job and qualification model files has_many :recommendations , :conditions = {:work_type = "J"} has_many :recommendations , :conditions = {:work_type = "Q"} Both Job and Qualification Models have a column as recommendations_count The problem is every time an object of recommendation is created count is increased in the both the models Please help me with this Thanks

    Read the article

  • Best way to change Satchmo checkout page fields?

    - by konrad
    For a Satchmo project we have to change the fields a customer has to fill out during checkout. Specifically, we have to: Add a 'middle name' field Replace the bill and delivery addressee with separate first, middle and last name fields Replace the two address lines with street, number and number extension These fields are expected by an upstream web service, so we need to store this data separately. What's the best way to achieve this with minimal changes in the rest of Satchmo? We prefer a solution in which we do not have to change the Satchmo code itself, but if required we can fork it.

    Read the article

  • raw_id_fields for modelforms

    - by nbv4
    I have a modelform which has one field that is a ForeignKey value to a model which as 40,000 rows. The default modelform tries to create a select box with 40,000 options, which, to say the least is not ideal. Even more so when this modelform is used in a formset factory! In the admin, this is easiely avoidable by using "raw_id_fields", but there doesn't seem to be a modelform equivalent. How can I do this? Here is my modelform: class OpBaseForm(ModelForm): base = forms.CharField() class Meta: model = OpBase exclude = ['operation', 'routes'] extra = 0 raw_id_fields = ('base', ) #does nothing The first bolded line works by not creating the huge unwieldy selectbox, but when I try to save a fieldset of this form, I get the error: "OpBase.base" must be a "Base" instance. In order for the modelform to be saved, 'base' needs to be a Base instance. Apparently, a string representation of a Base primary key isn't enough (at least not automatically). I need some kind of mechanism to change the string that is given my the form, to a Base instance. And this mechanism has to work in a formset. Any ideas? If only raw_id_fields would work, this would be easy as cake. But as far as I can tell, it only is available in the admin.

    Read the article

  • Organizing a lot of models that use STI in rails

    - by DavidP6
    I have a scenario where I am going to be creating a large number of models that use STI and I'm wondering what the best way to organize this is. I already have other models using STI and I really do not want to add any more files to my models folder. Is there any way to create a folder and add the models using STI there (there could be upwards of 40 b/c each uses its own methods to scrape a different site, but they all save the same data)? This seems like it would be best, or I could add them all to one file but I would rather separate them.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to replace values ina queryset before sending it to your template?

    - by Issy
    Hi Guys, Wondering if it's possible to change a value returned from a queryset before sending it off to the template. Say for example you have a bunch of records Date | Time | Description 10/05/2010 | 13:30 | Testing... etc... However, based on the day of the week the time may change. However this is static. For example on a monday the time is ALWAYS 15:00. Now you could add another table to configure special cases but to me it seems overkill, as this is a rule. How would you replace that value before sending it to the template? I thought about using the new if tags (if day=1), but this is more of business logic rather then presentation. Tested this in a custom template tag def render(self, context): result = self.model._default_manager.filter(from_date__lte=self.now).filter(to_date__gte=self.now) if self.day == 4: result = result.exclude(type__exact=2).order_by('time') else: result = result.order_by('type') result[0].time = '23:23:23' context[self.varname] = result return '' However it still displays the results from the DB, is this some how related to 'lazy' evaluation of templates? Thanks! Update Responding to comments below: It's not stored wrong in the DB, its stored Correctly However there is a small side case where the value needs to change. So for example I have a From Date & To date, my query checks if todays date is between those. Now with this they could setup a from date - to date for an entire year, and the special cases (like mondays as an example) is taken care off. However if you want to store in the DB you would have to capture several more records to cater for the side case. I.e you would be capturing the same information just to cater for that 1 day when the time changes. (And the time always changes on the same day, and is always the same)

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to replace values in a queryset before sending it to your template?

    - by Issy
    Hi Guys, Wondering if it's possible to change a value returned from a queryset before sending it off to the template. Say for example you have a bunch of records Date | Time | Description 10/05/2010 | 13:30 | Testing... etc... However, based on the day of the week the time may change. However this is static. For example on a monday the time is ALWAYS 15:00. Now you could add another table to configure special cases but to me it seems overkill, as this is a rule. How would you replace that value before sending it to the template? I thought about using the new if tags (if day=1), but this is more of business logic rather then presentation. Tested this in a custom template tag def render(self, context): result = self.model._default_manager.filter(from_date__lte=self.now).filter(to_date__gte=self.now) if self.day == 4: result = result.exclude(type__exact=2).order_by('time') else: result = result.order_by('type') result[0].time = '23:23:23' context[self.varname] = result return '' However it still displays the results from the DB, is this some how related to 'lazy' evaluation of templates? Thanks! Update Responding to comments below: It's not stored wrong in the DB, its stored Correctly However there is a small side case where the value needs to change. So for example I have a From Date & To date, my query checks if todays date is between those. Now with this they could setup a from date - to date for an entire year, and the special cases (like mondays as an example) is taken care off. However if you want to store in the DB you would have to capture several more records to cater for the side case. I.e you would be capturing the same information just to cater for that 1 day when the time changes. (And the time always changes on the same day, and is always the same)

    Read the article

  • Returning user data for forms that have errors in when using ModelForms

    - by Sevenearths
    forms.py from django.forms import ModelForm from client.models import ClientDetails, ClientAddress, ClientPhone from snippets.UKPhoneNumberForm import UKPhoneNumberField class ClientDetailsForm(ModelForm): class Meta: model = ClientDetails class ClientAddressForm(ModelForm): class Meta: model = ClientAddress class ClientPhoneForm(ModelForm): number = UKPhoneNumberField() class Meta: model = ClientPhone views.py from django.shortcuts import render_to_response, redirect from django.template import RequestContext from client.forms import ClientDetailsForm, ClientAddressForm, ClientPhoneForm def new_client_view(request): formDetails = ClientDetailsForm(initial={'marital_status':'u'}) formAddress = ClientAddressForm() formHomePhone = ClientPhoneForm(initial={'phone_type':'home'}) formWorkPhone = ClientPhoneForm(initial={'phone_type':'work'}) formMobilePhone = ClientPhoneForm(initial={'phone_type':'mobi'}) return render_to_response('client/new_client.html', {'formDetails': formDetails, 'formAddress': formAddress, 'formHomePhone': formHomePhone, 'formWorkPhone': formWorkPhone, 'formMobilePhone': formMobilePhone}, context_instance=RequestContext(request)) (the new_client.html is nothing special) How should I write views.py so that if the user's data raises an error, instead of showing them the form again with the errors in but none of their original data, it shows them the form again with the errors AND their original data?

    Read the article

  • django updating m2m field

    - by Marconi
    I have a model service and a ModelForm named Service which I use to add and update the service model. The model looks like this: class Service(models.Model): categories = models.ManyToManyField(Category) The categories field is displayed as a tag with that allows multiple selection. It works well when I'm adding a new record but when I'm updating it, only one service is showing up on the request.POST['categories'] even if I selected multiple categories. I tried dumping the request object and I can see that the categories is showing something like: u'categories': [u'3', u'4', u'2'] I tried calling the request._get_post() and it did return only 1 category, hence the request.POST['categories'] returns only 1. Anybody who knows what's happening and how to fix it?

    Read the article

  • How to disable Middleware and Request Context in some views.

    - by xRobot
    I am creating a chat like facebook chat... so in views.py of my Chat Application, I need to retrieve only the last messages every 3-4 seconds with ajax poll ( the latency is not a problem for me ). If I can disable some Middlewares and some Request Context in this view, the response will be faster... no ? My question is: Is there a way to disable some Middlewares and some Request Context in some views ?

    Read the article

  • Change list link to foreign key change page

    - by Adam
    When viewing the admin change list for a model, is it possible to make the columns that correspond to foreign keys links to their respective pages? A simple example is I have a Foo object which contains Bar as a foreign key. If I'm viewing the admin change list for Foo (and have it set to include Bar in the display_list columns), the main column would link to the Foo instance's edit page while the Bar column would link to the Boo instance's edit page. I understand I can override the template that's used, but I was curious if there was a solution that didn't require that.

    Read the article

  • Help with understanding generic relations in Django (and usage in Admin)

    - by saturdayplace
    I'm building a CMS for my company's website (I've looked at the existing Django solutions and want something that's much slimmer/simpler, and that handles our situation specifically.. Plus, I'd like to learn this stuff better). I'm having trouble wrapping my head around generic relations. I have a Page model, a SoftwareModule model, and some other models that define content on our website, each with their get_absolute_url() defined. I'd like for my users to be able to assign any Page instance a list of objects, of any type, including other page instances. This list will become that Page instance's sub-menu. I've tried the following: class Page(models.Model): body = models.TextField() links = generic.GenericRelation("LinkedItem") @models.permalink def get_absolute_url(self): # returns the right URL class LinkedItem(models.Model): content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType) object_id = models.PositiveIntegerField() content_object = generic.GenericForeignKey('content_type', 'object_id') title = models.CharField(max_length=100) def __unicode__(self): return self.title class SoftwareModule(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=100) description = models.TextField() def __unicode__(self): return self.name @models.permalink def get_absolute_url(self): # returns the right URL This gets me a generic relation with an API to do page_instance.links.all(). We're on our way. What I'm not sure how to pull off, is on the page instance's change form, how to create the relationship between that page, and any other extant object in the database. My desired end result: to render the following in a template: <ul> {% for link in page.links.all %} <li><a href='{{ link.content_object.get_absolute_url() }}'>{{ link.title }}</a></li> {% endfor%} </ul> Obviously, there's something I'm unaware of or mis-understanding, but I feel like I'm, treading into that area where I don't know what I don't know. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Django Cannot set values on a ManyToManyField which specifies an intermediary model

    - by dana
    i am using a m2m and a through table, and when i was trying to save, my error was: Cannot set values on a ManyToManyField which specifies an intermediary model so, i've modified my code, so that when i save the form, to insert data into the 'through' table too.But now, i'm having another error. (i've bolded the lines where i think i am wrong) i have in models.py: class Classroom(models.Model): user = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name = 'classroom_creator') classname = models.CharField(max_length=140, unique = True) date = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) open_class = models.BooleanField(default=True) members = models.ManyToManyField(User,related_name="list of invited members", through = 'Membership') class Membership(models.Model): accept = models.BooleanField(User) date = models.DateTimeField(auto_now = True) classroom = models.ForeignKey(Classroom, related_name = 'classroom_membership') member = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name = 'user_membership') and in def save_classroom(request): if request.method == 'POST': form = ClassroomForm(request.POST, request.FILES, user = request.user) **classroom_instance = Classroom member_instance = Membership** if form.is_valid(): new_obj = form.save(commit=False) new_obj.user = request.user r = Relations.objects.filter(initiated_by = request.user) membership = Membership.objects.create(**classroom = classroom_instance, member = member_instance,date=datetime.datetime.now())** new_obj.save() form.save_m2m() return HttpResponseRedirect('/classroom/classroom_view/{{user}}/') else: form = ClassroomForm(user = request.user) return render_to_response('classroom/classroom_form.html', { 'form': form, }, context_instance=RequestContext(request)) but i don't seem to initialise okay the classroom_instance and menber_instance.My error os: Cannot assign "": "Membership.classroom" must be a "Classroom" instance. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Django: Applying Calculations To A Query Set

    - by TheLizardKing
    I have a QuerySet that I wish to pass to a generic view for pagination: links = Link.objects.annotate(votes=Count('vote')).order_by('-created')[:300] This is my "hot" page which lists my 300 latest submissions (10 pages of 30 links each). I want to now sort this QuerySet by an algorithm that HackerNews uses: (p - 1) / (t + 2)^1.5 p = votes minus submitter's initial vote t = age of submission in hours Now because applying this algorithm over the entire database would be pretty costly I am content with just the last 300 submissions. My site is unlikely to be the next digg/reddit so while scalability is a plus it is required. My question is now how do I iterate over my QuerySet and sort it by the above algorithm? For more information, here are my applicable models: class Link(models.Model): category = models.ForeignKey(Category, blank=False, default=1) user = models.ForeignKey(User) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) modified = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) url = models.URLField(max_length=1024, unique=True, verify_exists=True) name = models.CharField(max_length=512) def __unicode__(self): return u'%s (%s)' % (self.name, self.url) class Vote(models.Model): link = models.ForeignKey(Link) user = models.ForeignKey(User) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) def __unicode__(self): return u'%s vote for %s' % (self.user, self.link) Notes: I don't have "downvotes" so just the presence of a Vote row is an indicator of a vote or a particular link by a particular user.

    Read the article

  • Django: Determining if a user has voted or not

    - by TheLizardKing
    I have a long list of links that I spit out using the below code, total votes, submitted by, the usual stuff but I am not 100% on how to determine if the currently logged in user has voted on a link or not. I know how to do this from within my view but do I need to alter my below view code or can I make use of the way templates work to determine it? I have read http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1528583/django-vote-up-down-method but I don't quite understand what's going on ( and don't need any ofjavascriptery). Models (snippet): class Link(models.Model): category = models.ForeignKey(Category, blank=False, default=1) user = models.ForeignKey(User) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) modified = models.DateTimeField(auto_now=True) url = models.URLField(max_length=1024, unique=True, verify_exists=True) name = models.CharField(max_length=512) def __unicode__(self): return u'%s (%s)' % (self.name, self.url) class Vote(models.Model): link = models.ForeignKey(Link) user = models.ForeignKey(User) created = models.DateTimeField(auto_now_add=True) def __unicode__(self): return u'%s vote for %s' % (self.user, self.link) Views (snippet): def hot(request): links = Link.objects.select_related().annotate(votes=Count('vote')).order_by('-created') for link in links: delta_in_hours = (int(datetime.now().strftime("%s")) - int(link.created.strftime("%s"))) / 3600 link.popularity = ((link.votes - 1) / (delta_in_hours + 2)**1.5) if request.user.is_authenticated(): try: link.voted = Vote.objects.get(link=link, user=request.user) except Vote.DoesNotExist: link.voted = None links = sorted(links, key=lambda x: x.popularity, reverse=True) links = paginate(request, links, 15) return direct_to_template( request, template = 'links/link_list.html', extra_context = { 'links': links, }) The above view actually accomplishes what I need but in what I believe to be a horribly inefficient way. This causes the dreaded n+1 queries, as it stands that's 33 queries for a page containing just 29 links while originally I got away with just 4 queries. I would really prefer to do this using Django's ORM or at least .extra(). Any advice?

    Read the article

  • Re-ordering child nodes in django-MPTT

    - by Dominic Rodger
    I'm using Ben Firshman's fork of django-MPTT (hat tip to Daniel Roseman for the recommendation). I've got stuck trying to re-order nodes which share a common parent. I've got a list of primary keys, like this: ids = [5, 9, 7, 3] All of these nodes have a parent, say with primary key 1. At present, these nodes are ordered [5, 3, 9, 7], how can I re-order them to [5, 9, 7, 3]? I've tried something like this: last_m = MyModel.get(pk = ids.pop(0)) last_m.move_to(last_m.parent, position='first-child') for id in ids: m = MyModel.get(pk = id) m.move_to(last_m, position='right') Which I'd expect to do what I want, per the docs on move_to, but it doesn't seem to change anything. Sometimes it seems to move the first item in ids to be the first child of its parent, sometimes it doesn't. Am I right in my reading of the docs for move_to that calling move_to on a node n with position=right and a target which is a sibling of n will move n to immediately after the target? It's possible I've screwed up my models table in trying to figure this out, so maybe the code above is actually right. It's also possible there's a much more elegant way of doing this (perhaps one that doesn't involve O(n) selects and O(n) updates). Have I misunderstood something? Bonus question: is there a way of forcing django-MPTT to rebuild lft and rght values for all instances of a given model?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39  | Next Page >