#django

I want to make something like

<p> field1 :{{ myobject.field1}}</p>

<p> field2 :{{ myobject.field2}}</p>

...

<p> fieldn :{{ myobject.fieldn}}</p>

But I'm really lazy to write all my fields (they're too much fields). Is there a short way?

ahhhh, does strftime() format not have a non-zero padded day of the month?? http://docs.python.org/2/library/datetime.html#... or am i going blind

cfoch: write a small script to do it for you

cfoch: if you're using a form (and you should), then just output form.as_p

tbaxter: it is a model

Even better. Then use a modelform

Oh wait. "field" confused me. You're not outputting a form at all. You're trying to dump out all your model attributes.

No, there is no shortcut, as it's almost always a bad idea.

tbaxter: what is a bad idea?

Although there have been some conversations on here about whipping up a model outputter similar to how modelforms work, in which you would specify safe-to-output fields and then be able to do something like that. But I don't think anyone has been motivated to do anything like that.

blindly dumping model attributes

And even aside from the fact that many attributes shouldn't be dumped, there's the problem of how to format dates, how to dump relationships. It's all a big ball of not-worth-it.

is there a way to get the data of the model as a dict? So I can do something like

{% for key, value in data.iteritems %} <p>{{ key }}: {{ value }}</p>{% endfor %}

my task would be easiest: i think

cfoch: Build the dict that you want in your view.

cfoch: you're trying to do something that is not a good idea. There is an underlying problem here. Maybe it's that the model has too many fields. Maybe you're trying to output too much, maybe you're not paying attention to HOW things are being output. Without having a better idea of what you're working with, I can't say.

Or write a model method that returns the dict.

Both of mattmcc's suggestions will work. But I still think you're trying to work over another problem.

I mean, how many are "too many fields"?

tbaxter: I think you want this link :) http://bash.org/?866112

about 17

tbaxter

17 fields? that's all?

17 isn't really that many at all

And I'm guessing that at least 2 or 3 of them can't be just blindly output, because they require some special handling (dates, FKs, M2M, etc)

probably more like 5 or 6

and... I had to divide it in 4 forms

sorry... 4 models

we're not talking about forms are we?

cfoch: maybe you should show us these models.

I mean, are you talking about 17 fields across 4 models? So each model has ~4 fields on average?

FunkyBob: yes. that :-)

tbaxter: no...

do you want to see it???

Yes, seeing is better than guessing.

I am curious what's going on with this model that makes it so difficult, yeah.

username: peterpan

password: monosacarido

get logged with that

no, I want to see the model(s)

ok

tbaxter: It's Application... before Application, Check, Paypal and BanTransfer where in an only one model called Application

cfoch: small tip -- don't import models just to use them in relation fields... e.g. Persona

instead, use the string form... in this case, user = models.ForeignKey('userprofile.Persona')

same for Event

it helps to avoid circular imports

OK, model-wise I think you're on the right track. There are a few things I could quibble about, but it's not bad at all. Looking at your model, though, I think you *really* need to take the time to output your details by hand carefully. You have quite a few M2Ms you'll need to output as a list, or FKs that you wont want the unicode() from. I also think you won't want to output a lot of those fields all the time.

also: this is bad: https://github.com/cfoch/gtravel-webapp/blob/ma...

you need to return a nicely formatted unicode string. You probably want return 'Application {0}'.format(self.id)

Anyways, taking the time to output that stuff carefully now will seem like Too Much Work, but you'll be miles ahead over the long haul.

tbaxter: +1

there are some things you just can't provide a generic solution for

Well, you could, but it'd be a lousy solution.

s/can't/shouldn't/

can I use secure cookies for django sessions?

I'm grateful. thanks...

calamari: it's in the docs... so, I'd say yes

FunkyBob: I must be looking at the wrong page then, my apologies

I will follow your recommendations

thanks

I'm using MainPageContent.objects.get_or_create(id=1)[0] which constantly raise exception "matching query does not exist". Can you tell me why?

get_or_create(id=1) should create new object if it doesn't exists - docs said that

Katharsis: can you dpaste the traceback?

sure

FunkyBob: http://pastebin.com/iizQq5nh

105. this = MainPageContent.objects.get(pk=self.pk)

MainPageContent is a singleton model

that's what's raising the exception

not a get_or_create

so, self.pk has to be 1

File "/home/katharsis/workspace/kadastudio/src/config/models.py" in save

yeah... I've never liked singleton models

FunkyBob: http://pastebin.com/Tn6mggn6 part of save method

what's a singleton model?

as you can see, I'm using if self.pk, so object should be created

Katharsis: right... so when get_or_create is trying to save the one it's creating... your save tries to load it!

tbaxter: a model that can only ever have one row in the table

sounds weird

Katharsis: but get_or_create is setting the pk

because you told it to

tbaxter: why? it's good for user configuration/settings

never run into one before. Not sure what you'd use one for

Katharsis: there are plenty of other tools to provide user configuration besides singleton models

Katharsis: I use settings for settings :-)

tbaxter: not django project settings, I mean user profile settings

user profile settings are part of the user profile (or have a relationship with it). So that table could have as many rows as there are users.

FunkyBob: so, should I call super(MainPageContent, self).save(*args, **kwargs) first?

tbaxter: another example, settings for project (payments) which admin can edit from django admin site

tbaxter: imo, singleton is right for this situation