ChatGPT解决这个技术问题 Extra ChatGPT

In Django, how does one filter a QuerySet with dynamic field lookups?

Given a class:

from django.db import models

class Person(models.Model):
    name = models.CharField(max_length=20)

Is it possible, and if so how, to have a QuerySet that filters based on dynamic arguments? For example:

 # Instead of:
 Person.objects.filter(name__startswith='B')
 # ... and:
 Person.objects.filter(name__endswith='B')

 # ... is there some way, given:
 filter_by = '{0}__{1}'.format('name', 'startswith')
 filter_value = 'B'

 # ... that you can run the equivalent of this?
 Person.objects.filter(filter_by=filter_value)
 # ... which will throw an exception, since `filter_by` is not
 # an attribute of `Person`.

D
Daniel Naab

Python's argument expansion may be used to solve this problem:

kwargs = {
    '{0}__{1}'.format('name', 'startswith'): 'A',
    '{0}__{1}'.format('name', 'endswith'): 'Z'
}

Person.objects.filter(**kwargs)

This is a very common and useful Python idiom.


Just a quick gotcha heads-up: make sure the strings in the kwargs are of type str not unicode, else filter() will grumble.
@santiagobasulto It's also referred to a parameter packing/unpacking, and variations thereof.
@DanielNaab but this will work only on kwargs working on AND condition filtering, any alternative for OR condition.
@prateek you can always use Q objects: stackoverflow.com/questions/13076822/…
@deecodameeko how to Q objects inside kwargs?
s
shacker

A simplified example:

In a Django survey app, I wanted an HTML select list showing registered users. But because we have 5000 registered users, I needed a way to filter that list based on query criteria (such as just people who completed a certain workshop). In order for the survey element to be re-usable, I needed for the person creating the survey question to be able to attach those criteria to that question (don't want to hard-code the query into the app).

The solution I came up with isn't 100% user friendly (requires help from a tech person to create the query) but it does solve the problem. When creating the question, the editor can enter a dictionary into a custom field, e.g.:

{'is_staff':True,'last_name__startswith':'A',}

That string is stored in the database. In the view code, it comes back in as self.question.custom_query . The value of that is a string that looks like a dictionary. We turn it back into a real dictionary with eval() and then stuff it into the queryset with **kwargs:

kwargs = eval(self.question.custom_query)
user_list = User.objects.filter(**kwargs).order_by("last_name")   

I'm wondering what it would take to create a custom ModelField/FormField/WidgetField that implemented the behavior to allow the user to, on the GUI side, basically "build" a query, never seeing the actual text, but using an interface to do so. Sounds like a neat project...
T. Stone - I'd imagine it would be easy to build such a tool in a simplistic way if the models that need querying were simple, but very difficult to do in a thorough way that exposed all possible options, especially if the models were complex.
-1 calling eval() on user import is a bad idea, even if you trust your users completely. A JSON field would be a better idea here.
B
Brent81

Django.db.models.Q is exactly what you want in a Django way.


Could you (or someone) provide an example of how to use Q objects in using dynamic field names ?
It's the same as in Daniel Naab's answer The only difference being that you pass the arguments into the Q object constructor. Q(**filters), if you wanted to dynamically build up Q objects you can put them in a list and use .filter(*q_objects), or use the bitwise operators to combine the Q objects.
This answer should really include an example of using Q to solve OP's problem.
I have an example here, but it will probably break inside the comment, so I wrote additional answer here.
B
Branko Radojevic

Additionally to extend on previous answer that made some requests for further code elements I am adding some working code that I am using in my code with Q. Let's say that I in my request it is possible to have or not filter on fields like:

publisher_id
date_from
date_until

Those fields can appear in query but they may also be missed.

This is how I am building filters based on those fields on an aggregated query that cannot be further filtered after the initial queryset execution:

# prepare filters to apply to queryset
filters = {}
if publisher_id:
    filters['publisher_id'] = publisher_id
if date_from:
    filters['metric_date__gte'] = date_from
if date_until:
    filters['metric_date__lte'] = date_until

filter_q = Q(**filters)

queryset = Something.objects.filter(filter_q)...

Hope this helps since I've spent quite some time to dig this up.

Edit:

As an additional benefit, you can use lists too. For previous example, if instead of publisher_id you have a list called publisher_ids, than you could use this piece of code:

if publisher_ids:
    filters['publisher_id__in'] = publisher_ids

S
S.Lott

A really complex search forms usually indicates that a simpler model is trying to dig it's way out.

How, exactly, do you expect to get the values for the column name and operation? Where do you get the values of 'name' an 'startswith'?

 filter_by = '%s__%s' % ('name', 'startswith')

A "search" form? You're going to -- what? -- pick the name from a list of names? Pick the operation from a list of operations? While open-ended, most people find this confusing and hard-to-use. How many columns have such filters? 6? 12? 18? A few? A complex pick-list doesn't make sense. A few fields and a few if-statements make sense. A large number? Your model doesn't sound right. It sounds like the "field" is actually a key to a row in another table, not a column. Specific filter buttons. Wait... That's the way the Django admin works. Specific filters are turned into buttons. And the same analysis as above applies. A few filters make sense. A large number of filters usually means a kind of first normal form violation.

A lot of similar fields often means there should have been more rows and fewer fields.


With respect, it's presumptuous to make recommendations without knowing anything about the design. To "simply implement" this application would beget astronomical (>200 apps ^21 foos) functions to meet the requirements. You're reading purpose and intent into the example; you shouldn't. :)
I meet a lot of people who feel that their problem would be trivial to solve if only things were (a) more generic and (b) worked the way they imagined. That way lies endless frustration because things aren't the way they imagined. I've seen too many failures stem from "fixing the framework".
Things work as expected and desired per Daniel's response. My question was about syntax, not design. If I had time to write out the design, I'd have done that. I'm sure your input would be helpful, however it's just not a practical option.
S.Lott, your answer doesn't even remotely answer this question. If you don't know an answer, please leave the question alone. Don't respond with unsolicited design advice when you have absolutely zero knowledge of the design!
@slypete: If a change to the design removes the problem, then the problem's solved. Continuing along the path based on a poor design is more expensive and complex than necessary. Solving root-cause problems is better than solving other problems that stem from bad design decisions. I'm sorry you don't like root-cause analysis. But when something's really hard, it usually means you're trying the wrong thing to begin with.