Search Results

Search found 4150 results on 166 pages for 'markov models'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 33/166 | < Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >

  • Django gives "I/O operation on closed file" error when reading from a saved ImageField

    - by Rob Osborne
    I have a model with two image fields, a source image and a thumbnail. When I update the new source image, save it and then try to read the source image to crop/scale it to a thumbnail I get an "I/O operation on closed file" error from PIL. If I update the source image, don't save the source image, and then try to read the source image to crop/scale, I get an "attempting to read from closed file" error from PIL. In both cases the source image is actually saved and available in later request/response loops. If I don't crop/scale in a single request/response loop but instead upload on one page and then crop/scale in another page this all works fine. This seems to be a cached buffer being reused some how, either by PIL or by the Django file storage. Any ideas on how to make an ImageField readable after saving?

    Read the article

  • how to save django object using dictionary?

    - by shahjapan
    is there a way that I can save the model by using dictionary for e.g. this is working fine, p1 = Poll.objects.get(pk=1) p1.name = 'poll2' p1.descirption = 'poll2 description' p1.save() but what if I have dictionary like { 'name': 'poll2', 'description: 'poll2 description' } is there a simple way to save the such dictionary direct to Poll

    Read the article

  • Django: FloatField or DecimalFied for Currency ?

    - by Hellnar
    I am curious which one would be better fitting as a currency field ? I will do simple operations such as taking difference, the percentage between old and new prices. I plan to keep two digits after the zero (ie 10.50) and majority of the time if these digits are zero, I will be hiding these numbers and display it as "10"

    Read the article

  • Rails link from one model to another based on db field?

    - by Danny McClelland
    Hi Everyone, I have a company model and a person model with the following relationships: class Company < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :kases has_many :people def to_s; companyname; end end class Person < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :kases # foreign key in join table belongs_to :company end In the create action for the person, I have a select box with a list of the companies, which assigns a company_id to that person's record: <%= f.select :company_id, Company.all.collect {|m| [m.companyname, m.id]} %> In the show view for the person I can list the company name as follows: <%=h @person.company.companyname %> What I am trying to work out, is how do I make that a link to the company record? I have tried: <%= link_to @person.company.companyname %> but that just outputs the company name inside a href tag but links to the current page. Thanks, Danny

    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

  • Difference in Django object creation call

    - by PhilGo20
    I'd like to know if there's a difference between the following two calls to create an object in Django Animal.objects.create(name="cat", sound="meow") and Animal(name="cat", sound="meow") I see both in test cases and I want to make sure I am not missing something. thanks

    Read the article

  • Saving model object in django throws no error but attribute value doesn't change

    - by Pilgrim
    Hi. I get a model object, change an attribute, save it and it still has the old attribute: >>> g = SiteProfile.objects.get(pk=3) >>> g.renew_date datetime.date(2010, 4, 11) >>> g.renew_date = date.today()+timedelta(days=365) >>> g.renew_date datetime.date(2011, 4, 11) >>> g.save() >>> g.renew_date datetime.datetime(2010, 4, 11, 16, 57, 4, 192684) Anyone know if this is an issue with the database or something else?

    Read the article

  • Django: How can I protect against concurrent modification of data base entries

    - by Ber
    If there a way to protect against concurrent modifications of the same data base entry by two or more users? It would be acceptable to show an error message to the user performing the second commit/save operation, but data should not be silently overwritten. I think locking the entry is not an option, as a user might use the "Back" button or simply close his browser, leaving the lock for ever.

    Read the article

  • Django get_FOO_display and distinct()

    - by datakid
    I've seen answers to both halves of my question, but I can't work out how to marry the two. I have a book model, and a translatedBook model. The translatedBook has a langage set up as model choices in the usual way: LANGUAGES = ( (u'it', u'Italian'), (u'ja', u'Japanese'), (u'es', u'Spanish'), (u'zh-cn', u'Simplified Chinese'), (u'zh-tw', u'Traditional Chinese'), (u'fr', u'French'), (u'el', u'Greek'), (u'ar', u'Arabic'), (u'bg', u'Bulgarian'), (u'bn', u'Bengali'), etc I know that to get "Italian" I have to do translatedBook.get_language_display on a Book object. But how do I get a list of distinct languages in their long format? I've tried: lang_avail = TargetText.objects.values('language').distinct().order_by('language') lang_avail = TargetText.objects.distinct().order_by('language').values('language'). lang_avail = TargetText.objects.all().distinct('language').order_by('language') but I can't seem to get what I want - which is a list like: "English, Italian, Simplified Chinese, Spanish" The final lang_avail listed above didn't return the list of 5, it returned the list of 355 (ie, # of books) with multiple repeats....

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic :has_many, :through as module in Rails 3.1 plugin

    - by JohnMetta
    I've search everywhere for a pointer to this, but can't find one. Basically, I want to do what everyone else wants to do when they create a polymorphic relationship in a :has_many, :through way… but I want to do it in a module. I keep getting stuck and think I must be overlooking something simple. To wit: module ActsPermissive module PermissiveUser def self.included(base) base.extend ClassMethods end module ClassMethods def acts_permissive has_many :ownables has_many :owned_circles, :through => :ownables end end end class PermissiveCircle < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :ownable, :polymorphic => true end end With a migration that looks like this: create_table :permissive_circles do |t| t.string :ownable_type t.integer :ownable_id t.timestamps end The idea, of course, is that whatever loads acts_permissive will be able to have a list of circles that it owns. For simple tests, I have it "should have a list of circles" do user = Factory :user user.owned_circles.should be_an_instance_of Array end which fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array NameError: uninitialized constant User::Ownable I've tried: using :class_name => 'ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle' on the has_many :ownables line, which fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array ActiveRecord::HasManyThroughSourceAssociationNotFoundError: Could not find the source association(s) :owned_circle or :owned_circles in model ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle. Try 'has_many :owned_circles, :through => :ownables, :source => <name>'. Is it one of :ownable? while following the suggestion and setting :source => :ownable fails with Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array ActiveRecord::HasManyThroughAssociationPolymorphicSourceError: Cannot have a has_many :through association 'User#owned_circles' on the polymorphic object 'Ownable#ownable' Which seems to suggest that doing things with a non-polymorphic-through is necessary. So I added a circle_owner class similar to the setup here: module ActsPermissive class CircleOwner < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :permissive_circle belongs_to :ownable, :polymorphic => true end module PermissiveUser def self.included(base) base.extend ClassMethods end module ClassMethods def acts_permissive has_many :circle_owners, :as => :ownable has_many :circles, :through => :circle_owners, :source => :ownable, :class_name => 'ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle' end end class PermissiveCircle < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :circle_owners end end With a migration: create_table :permissive_circles do |t| t.string :name t.string :guid t.timestamps end create_table :circle_owner do |t| t.string :ownable_type t.string :ownable_id t.integer :permissive_circle_id end which still fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array NameError: uninitialized constant User::CircleOwner Which brings us back to the beginning. How can I do what seems to be a rather common polymorphic :has_many, :through on a module? Alternatively, is there a good way to allow an object to be collected by arbitrary objects in a similar way that will work with a module?

    Read the article

  • Django IntegrityError: foreign key violation upon delete

    - by Lukasz Korzybski
    I have Order and Shipment model. Shipment has a foreign key to Order. class Order(...): ... class Shipment() order = m.ForeignKey('Order') ... Now in one of my views I want do delete order object along with all related objects. So I invoke order.delete(). I have Django 1.0.4, PostgreSQL 8.4 and I use transaction middleware, so whole request is enclosed in single transaction. The problem is that upon order.delete() I get: ... File "/usr/local/lib/python2.6/dist-packages/django/db/backends/__init__.py", line 28, in _commit return self.connection.commit() IntegrityError: update or delete on table "main_order" violates foreign key constraint "main_shipment_order_id_fkey" on table "main_shipment" DETAIL: Key (id)=(45) is still referenced from table "main_shipment". I checked in connection.queries that proper queries are executed in proper order. First shipment is deleted, after that django executes delete on order row: {'time': '0.000', 'sql': 'DELETE FROM "main_shipment" WHERE "id" IN (17)'}, {'time': '0.000', 'sql': 'DELETE FROM "main_order" WHERE "id" IN (45)'} Foreign key have ON DELETE NO ACTION (default) and is initially deferred. I don't know why I get foreign key constraint violation. I also tried to register pre_delete signal and manually delete shipment objects before delete on order is called, but it resulted in the same error. I can change ON DELETE behaviour for this key in Postgres but it would be just a hack, I wonder if anyone has a better idea what's going on here. There is also a small detail, my Order model inherits from Cart model, so it actually doesn't have id field but cart_ptr_id and after DELETE on order is executed there is also DELETE on cart, but it seems unrelated? to the shipment-order problem so I simplified it in the example.

    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

  • changing the saved contents of the model , edit model fileds once saved

    - by imran-glt
    hi I have extended the user model and added extra fields to it i.e "latitude" "longitude" and status and than save it. up to here it works fine. but i want to allow the user to change his/her "latitude" "longitude" whenever he/she needs like the hotmail and yahoo allows change account feature. in my case the user only wants to chage the latitude and longitude i tried it in this way but it didnt work. is this the right way to do it ...... or is there any other way to change the saved contents view.py def status_change(request): print "status_change function called" if request.method == "POST": rform = registerForm(data = request.POST) uform = UserForm(data = request.POST) if rform.is_valid(): user = uform.save() register = rform.save() register.user = user register.save() return render_to_response('home.html') else: rform = registerForm() return render_to_response('status_change.html',{'rform':rform})

    Read the article

  • How to change Zend_Db_Table name within a Model to insert in multiple tables

    - by jwhat
    Using Zend Framework, I've created a Model to insert a record into a database. My question is, after $this->insert($data) how can I switch the active table so that I can insert a record into another table? Here's my code so far: class Model_DbTable_Foo extends Zend_Db_Table_Abstract { protected $_name = 'foo'; public function addFoo($params) { $data = array( 'foo' => $params['foo'], ); $this->insert($data); $foo_id = $this->getAdapter()->lastInsertId(); $data2 = array( 'bar' => $params['bar'] ); // I need to change the Db Table name here. $this->insert($data2); $bar_id = $this->getAdapter()->lastInsertId(); } }

    Read the article

  • Select distinct users with referrals

    - by Mark
    I have a bunch of Users. Since Django doesn't really let me extend the default User model, they each have Profiles. The Profiles have a referred_by field (a FK to User). I'm trying to get a list of Users with = 1 referral. Here's what I've got so far Profile.objects.filter(referred_by__isnull=False).values_list('referred_by', flat=True) Which gives me a list of IDs of the users who have referrals... but I need it to be distinct, and I want the User object, not their ID. Or better yet, it would be nice if it could return the number of referrals a user has. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad to use a model directly from a view in codeigniter?

    - by jason
    I know normally the data is passed thru to the view with the controller. however, currently in my view I load my model ($this-load-model('Db_model');) so i can use it in a loop to retrieve a users profile picture path from a array of IDs that is passed from controller. Will loading the db model in the view to accomplish this make my site more vulnerable or bad form? To me it seems to be outside of MVC concept but its working atm. thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I copy a queryset to a new model in django admin?

    - by user3806832
    I'm trying to write an action that allows the user to select the queryset and copy it to a new table. So: John, Mark, James, Tyler and Joe are in a table 1( called round 1) The user selects the action that say to "move to next round" and those same instances that were chosen are now also in the table for "round 2". I started trying with an action but don't really know where to go from here: def Round_2(modeladmin, request, queryset): For X in queryset: X.pk = None perform.short_description = "Move to Round 2" How can I copy them to the next table with all of their information (pk doesn't have to be the same)? Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I support conditional validation of model properties

    - by Jeff
    I currently have a form that I am building that needs to support two different versions. Each version might use a different subset of form fields. I have to do this to support two different clients, but I don't want to have entirely different controller actions for both. So, I am trying to come up with a way to use a strongly typed model with validation attributes but have some of these attributes be conditional. Some approaches I can think of is similar to steve sanderson's partial validation approach. Where I would clear the model errors in a filter OnActionExecuting based on which version of the form was active. The other approach I was thinking of would to break the model up into pieces using something like class FormModel { public Form1 Form1Model {get; set;} public Form2 FormModel {get; set;} } and then we would validate appropriately depending on

    Read the article

  • create a new model instance version instead of update

    - by pablo
    Hi, I have a model with a version field - autocreate timestamp. When a model instance is being saved I want to create a new instance with a new timestamp instead of updating the old model instance. Is it possible? I thought of overriding the model save() method but I don't know how to create a new instance without creating a infinite save() loop. Thanks

    Read the article

  • CakePHP: Using two tables for a single model

    - by mwaterous
    I'm just picking up development in CakePHP right now so forgive me if this seems obvious; it did to me when I first read about has, belongsTo, hasMany, etc. The problem is I would like to associate two tables with a single model, and was wondering if there was a way to configure this so that when CakePHP did it's queries it automatically performed a join on the two tables. I don't want to create a separate model for the second table as it is merely a meta information table - the master table will contain the primary information required, the meta table will be populated with secondary information that is not required and therefore may or may not be set for every row of the master table.

    Read the article

  • What is the best way to setup my tables and relationships for this use case?

    - by Dustin Brewer
    1)A user can have many causes and a cause can belong to many users. 2)A user can have many campaigns and campaigns can belong to many users. Campaigns belong to one cause. I want to be able to assign causes or campaigns to a given user, individually. So a user can be assigned a specific campaign. OR a user could be assigned a cause and all of the campaigns of that cause should then be associated with a user. Is that possible? And could I set it up so that the relationships could be simplified like so: User.causes = all causes that belong to a user User.campaigns = all campaigns that belong to user whether through a cause association or campaign association

    Read the article

  • Rails setting OR conditions in validate_presence_of in a model?

    - by Jty.tan
    In a rails model, is it possible to do something like class Example < ActiveRecord::Base #associations validates_presence_of :item_id, (:user_id OR :user_email) #functions end Where the model has 3 columns of :item_id, :user_id, and :user_email? I want the model to be valid as long as I have a :user_id or a :user_email. Idea being that if the item is recommended to a person who isn't currently signed up, it can be associated via email address for when the recommended person signs up. Or is there a different method that I can use instead?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40  | Next Page >