Search Results

Search found 14283 results on 572 pages for 'django generic views'.

Page 35/572 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • Django model field value preprocessing before returning

    - by Satoru.Logic
    Hi, all. I have a Note model class like this: class Note(models.Model): author = models.ForeignKey(User, related_name='notes') content = NoteContentField(max_length=256) NoteContentField is a custom sub-class of CharField that override the to_python method in purpose of doing some twitter-text-conversion processing. class NoteContentField(models.CharField): __metaclass__ = models.SubfieldBase def to_python(self, value): value = super(NoteContentField, self).to_python(value) from ..utils import linkify return mark_safe(linkify(value)) However, this doesn't work. When I save a Note object like this: note = Note(author=request.use, content=form.cleaned_data['content']) The conversed value is saved into the database, which is not what I wanna see. Would you please tell me what's wrong with this? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Django - Better evaluation of relationship at the model level

    - by Brant
    Here's a simple relational pair of models. class Shelf(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=100) def has_books(self): if Book.objects.filter(shelf=self): return True else: return False class Book(models.Model): shelf = models.ForeignKey(Shelf) name = models.CharField(max_length=100) Is there a better (or alternative) way to write the "has_book" method? I'm not a fan of the double database hit but I want to do this at the model level.

    Read the article

  • inverse relation to multiple inheriting classes in django

    - by Ofri Raviv
    Here are my schematic models: class Law(models.Model): ... class Bill(models.Model): ... # data for a proposed law, or change of an existing law class PrivateBill(Bill): ... # data for a Bill that was initiated by a parliament member class GovernmentBill(Bill): ... # data for a Bill that was initiated by the government It is possible and likely that in the future I (or maybe someone else) would want to add more Bill types. Every Bill should point to a Law (indicating what law this bill is going to change) and my question is: What is the best way to implement this? If I add the ForeignKey(Law) to Bill, I'll have a relation from every Bill to Law, but a Law would only have an inverse relation to Bills (bill_set), and not a different inverse relation to each type of bill. Of course I'll be able to filter each type of bill to get only the ones pointing to a specific Law, but this is something I think I'll need to use often, so I think having privatebill_set, governmentbill_set etc would make the code more readable. Another possible solution is to add the foreign key to each of the inheriting classes (this would give me a privatebill_set, governmentbill_set, futurebill_set), but that seems hairy because I would be relying on future programmers to remember to add that relation. How would you solve this?

    Read the article

  • Keeping track of changes - Django

    - by RadiantHex
    Hi folks!! I have various models of which I would like to keep track and collect statistical data. The problem is how to store the changes throughout time. I thought of various alternative: Storing a log in a TextField, open it and update it every time the model is saved. Alternatively pickle a list and store it in a TextField. Save logs on hard drive. What are your suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Django excluding specific instances from queryset without using field lookup

    - by Agos
    Hi, I sometimes have the need to make sure some instances are excluded from a queryset. This is the way I do it usually: unwanted_instance = Mymodel.objects.get(pk=bad_luck_number) uninteresting_stuff_happens() my_results = MyModel.objects.exclude(id=unwanted_instance.id) or, if I have more of them: my_results = MyModel.objects.exclude(id_in=[uw_in1.id, uw_in2.id, uw_in3.id]) This 'feels' a bit clunky, so I tried if I was lucky: my_ideally_obtained_results = MyModel.objects.exclude(unwanted_instance) Which doesn't work. But I read here on SO that a subquery can be used as parameter for exclude. Am I out of luck? Am I missing some functionality (checked the docs, but didn't find any useful pointer)

    Read the article

  • Complex Django filter question

    - by HWM-Rocker
    Lets say I have this class (simplified): class Tag (...): children = models.ManyToManyField(null=True, symmetrical=False) Now I already implemented the functions get_parents, get_all_ancestors. Is there a nice pythonic way to just the top level tags? If I had designed my Tags differently (to point to the parents instead) I would just make get_all_parents().filter(children=null). My first thought is to create a new function that will go recursively through all parents and save those that has none. But is there a possibility with filters or Query-objects to do the same (with fewer lines of code)? Thanks for your help. [edit] When it is finished, it should be a hierarchical tagging system. Each tag can have children, parents, but only the children are saved. I want to get all the top level tags, that point through many children / childrens children to my tag.

    Read the article

  • Changing User ModelAdmin for Django admin

    - by Leon
    How do you override the admin model for Users? I thought this would work but it doesn't? class UserAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin): list_display = ('email', 'first_name', 'last_name') list_filter = ('is_staff', 'is_superuser') admin.site.register(User, UserAdmin) I'm not looking to override the template, just change the displayed fields & ordering. Solutions please?

    Read the article

  • Doubt about django model API

    - by Clash
    Hello guys! So, here is what I want to do. I have a model Staff, that has a foreign key to the User model. I also have a model Match that has a foreign key to the User model. I want to select how much Matches every Staff has. I don't know how to do that, so far I only got it working for the User model. From Staff, it will not allow to annonate Match. This is what is working right now User.objects.annotate(ammount=Count("match")).filter(Q(ammount__gt=0)).order_by("ammount") And this is what I wanted to do Staff.objects.annotate(ammount=Count("match")).filter(Q(ammount__gt=0)).order_by("ammount") And by the way, is there any way to filter the matches? I want to filter the matches by a certain column. Thanks a lot in advance!

    Read the article

  • Check if Django model field choices exists

    - by Justin Lucas
    I'm attempting to check if a value exists in the choices tuple set for a model field. For example lets say I have a Model like this: class Vote(models.Model): VOTE_TYPE = ( (1, "Up"), (-1, "Down"), ) value = models.SmallIntegerField(max_length=1, choices=VOTE_TYPES) Now lets say in a view I have a variable new_value = 'Up' that I would like to use as the value field in a new Vote. How can I first check to see if the value of that variable exists in the VOTE_TYPE tuple? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Inline Form Validation in Django

    - by allanhenderson
    Newbie request that seems difficult to implement. I would like to make an entire inline formset within an admin change form compulsory.. so in my current scenario when I hit save on an Invoice form (in Admin) the inline Order form is blank. I'd like to stop people creating invoices with no orders associated. Anyone know an easy way to do that? Normal validation like (required=True) on the model field doesn't appear to work in this instance. Thanks!!

    Read the article

  • Multiprogramming in Django, writing to the Database

    - by Marcus Whybrow
    Introduction I have the following code which checks to see if a similar model exists in the database, and if it does not it creates the new model: class BookProfile(): # ... def save(self, *args, **kwargs): uniqueConstraint = {'book_instance': self.book_instance, 'collection': self.collection} # Test for other objects with identical values profiles = BookProfile.objects.filter(Q(**uniqueConstraint) & ~Q(pk=self.pk)) # If none are found create the object, else fail. if len(profiles) == 0: super(BookProfile, self).save(*args, **kwargs) else: raise ValidationError('A Book Profile for that book instance in that collection already exists') I first build my constraints, then search for a model with those values which I am enforcing must be unique Q(**uniqueConstraint). In addition I ensure that if the save method is updating and not inserting, that we do not find this object when looking for other similar objects ~Q(pk=self.pk). I should mention that I ham implementing soft delete (with a modified objects manager which only shows non-deleted objects) which is why I must check for myself rather then relying on unique_together errors. Problem Right thats the introduction out of the way. My problem is that when multiple identical objects are saved in quick (or as near as simultaneous) succession, sometimes both get added even though the first being added should prevent the second. I have tested the code in the shell and it succeeds every time I run it. Thus my assumption is if say we have two objects being added Object A and Object B. Object A runs its check upon save() being called. Then the process saving Object B gets some time on the processor. Object B runs that same test, but Object A has not yet been added so Object B is added to the database. Then Object A regains control of the processor, and has allready run its test, even though identical Object B is in the database, it adds it regardless. My Thoughts The reason I fear multiprogramming could be involved is that each Object A and Object is being added through an API save view, so a request to the view is made for each save, thus not a single request with multiple sequential saves on objects. It might be the case that Apache is creating a process for each request, and thus causing the problems I think I am seeing. As you would expect, the problem only occurs sometimes, which is characteristic of multiprogramming or multiprocessing errors. If this is the case, is there a way to make the test and set parts of the save() method a critical section, so that a process switch cannot happen between the test and the set?

    Read the article

  • Formwizards for editing in Django

    - by Espen Christensen
    Hi, I am in the process of making a webapp, and this webapp needs to have a form wizard. The wizard consists of 3 ModelForms, and it works flawlessly. But I need the second form to be a "edit form". That is, i need it to be a form that is passed an instance. How can you do this with a form wizard? How do you pass in an instance of a model? I see that the FormWizard class has a get_form method, but isnt there a documented way to use the formwizard for editing/reviewing of data?

    Read the article

  • Joining different models in Django

    - by Andrew Roberts
    Let's say I have this data model: class Workflow(models.Model): ... class Command(models.Model): workflow = models.ForeignKey(Workflow) ... class Job(models.Model): command = models.ForeignKey(Command) ... Suppose somewhere I want to loop through all the Workflow objects, and for each workflow I want to loop through its Commands, and for each Command I want to loop through each Job. Is there a way to structure this with a single query? That is, I'd like Workflow.objects.all() to join in its dependent models, so I get a collection that has dependent objects already cached, so workflows[0].command_set.get() doesn't produce an additional query. Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • Django: Overriding ModelAdmin save_model not working

    - by tufelkinder
    Even after obj.save(), the obj still does not have an id, so I cannot access or manipulate the m2m records. Just keep getting a "instance needs to have a primary key value before a many-to-many relationship can be used" error. def save_model(self, request, obj, form, change): obj.save() # this doesn't work super(Table2Admin, self).save_model(request, obj, form, change) # still doesn't save for tb1 in obj.table1.all: tb1_obj = ThroughTable.objects.get(table1=bk, table2=obj) # do other stuff What am I doing wrong? Why do I need to do to save this model?

    Read the article

  • When/Why ( if ever ) should i think about doing Generic Programming/Meta Programming

    - by hotadvice
    Hi there IMHO to me OOPS, design patterns make sense and i have been able to apply them practically. But when it comes to "generic programming /meta programming" of the Modern C++ kind, i am left confused. -- Is it a new programming/design paradigm ? -- Is it just limited to "library development"? If not, What design/coding situations call for using meta programming/generic programming. -- Does using templates mean i am doing generic programming? I have googled a lot on this topic but do not grasp the BIG PICTURE fully. Also see this post. After reading dicussions here under, up till now, I am sure ( might still not be correct): a) Generic programming and meta programming are two different concepts.

    Read the article

  • In Django, why is user.is_authenticated a method and not a member variable like is_staff

    - by luc
    Hello all, I've lost some time with a bug in my app due to user authentication. I think that it's a bit confusing but maybe someone can explain the reason and it will appear to me very logical. The user.is_staff is a member variable while user.is_authenticated is a method. However is_authenticated only returns True or False depending if the class is User or AnonymousUser (see http://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/topics/auth/) Is there a reason for that? Why user.is_authenticated is a method? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • how to customize django admin for clickable list_editable

    - by FurtiveFelon
    Hi all, Currently, i have a class MyAdmin(admin.ModelAdmin), and i have a field in there called name, which belongs to both list_editable and list_display. The current behavior is such that all fields that is in list_editable displays a form field. However, i would like to change that only when people click on the field would it turn into a editable form field. Can anyone point me in the right direction on how to do that (which template to edit etc.). Thank you very much! Jason

    Read the article

  • Django QuerySet ordering by expression

    - by Andrew
    How can i use order_by like order_by('field1'*'field2') For example i have items with price listed in different currencies, so to order items - i have to make currency conversion. class Currency(models.Model): code = models.CharField(max_length=3, primary_key=True) rateToUSD = models.DecimalField(max_digits=20,decimal_places=10) class Item(models.Model): priceRT = models.DecimalField(max_digits=15, decimal_places=2, default=0) cur = models.ForeignKey(Currency) I would like to have something like: Item.objects.all().order_by(F('priceRT')*F('cur__rateToUSD')) But unfortunately it doesnt work, i also faild with annotate. How can i permorm QuerySet ordering by result of value multiplication of 2 model's fields.

    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

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >