Re: Authenticate users with both username and email

[Matt Cooper]

Your if block in views.py is not well-formed. I haven't tested this but I'd 
write it more like this:

# try username
user = auth.authenticate(username=username, password=password)
if user is not None:
auth.login(request, user)
return HttpResponseRedirect('/')
# fall-through to email
user = auth.authenticate(email=username, password=password)
if user is not None:
auth.login(request, user)
return HttpResponseRedirect('/')
# ok, neither one worked
return HttpResponseRedirect('/accounts/invalid_login')


On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 10:07:29 PM UTC-8, Kakar Nyori wrote:

> I have extendted the *UserCreationForm* with email and other fields, so 
> that I could authenticate a user with both its username and email.
>
> forms.py:
>
>> class UserCreationForm(UserCreationForm):
>> class Meta:
>> model = User
>> fields = ('first_name', 'last_name', 'username', 'email',)
>
>
>  
> views.py:
>
> def auth_view(request):
>> username = request.POST.get('username','')
>> password = request.POST.get('password','')
>> user = auth.authenticate(username=username, password=password)
>> if user is not None:
>> auth.login(request, user)
>> return HttpResponseRedirect('/')
>> elif:
>> user = auth.authenticate(email=username, password=password)
>> if user is not None:
>> auth.login(request, user)
>> return HttpResponseRedirect('/')
>> else:
>> return HttpResponseRedirect('/accounts/invalid_login')
>
>
> html:
>
> 
>> {%csrf_token%}
>> Email or Username:
>> 
>> Password:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
>
>
> In the views I tried giving both the *username* and *email *as input from 
> the form as *name*, and check to see if username and password 
> authenticate. If not then check whether email and password authenticate. 
> But its not working. How do I solve this problem? Please kindly help me. 
> Thank you.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/97740eb6-f826-4159-b770-20e66d917b20%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Desired: Field behavior like AutoField + unique_with

[Matt Cooper]

Got it - thank you! This community is great :)

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 11:31:19 PM UTC-8, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>
> Because sequence number was running number per "tenant" (in my case it 
> was invoice type) that started from zero (0) at the beginning of the 
> every year. 
>
> You could use max+1 as well but you should be aware that there is a 
> slim chance that there is race condition and you may end up having two 
> entities with the same max number - that though would raise error when 
> trying to save into database. 
>
> By having explicitly pessimistic locking (select_for_update) for a row 
> with tenant + sequence value you can guarantee that no other request 
> can change the value while you're reading it. 
>
> To make that easier you can create custom manager that can retrieve 
> updated sequence values automagically, so your call would look like 
> something like: 
>
> Tenant.sequence.get_value(tenant, sequence) 
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2015 06:37:21 -0800 (PST) 
> Matt Cooper > wrote: 
>
> > Thanks Jani, good to hear someone has gone down this road before. 
> > Since you did it in code, is there a reason you kept a sequence value 
> > on Tenant rather than using 
> > Widget.objects.aggregate(Max(Widget.sequence_value)) ? I ask because 
> > for my app, Widget is actually just one of several cases where I need 
> > this pattern. If I could keep all the book-keeping on the model with 
> > the constraint, that seems cleaner to me. But, of course, I'm not 
> > willing to pay a huge performance or corruption penalty just for 
> > vague ideological purity :) 
> > 
> > Thanks again! 
> > ~matt 
> > 
> > On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 5:07:21 AM UTC-8, Jani Tiainen wrote: 
> > > 
> > > I've done something similiar. 
> > > 
> > > Only way to do that is that you need to upkeep that tenant 
> > > sequence_id manually, 
> > > 
> > > So doing something like: 
> > > 
> > > class Tenant(models.Model): 
> > > name = models.CharField(max_length=50) 
> > > sequence_value = models.IntegerField() 
> > > 
> > > and in a code: 
> > > 
> > > tenant = Tenant.object.get(id=tenant_id).select_for_update()  # 
> > > Pessimistic locking 
> > > tenant.sequence_value = tenant.sequence_value + 1 
> > > tenant.save() 
> > > 
> > > widget = Widget(owner=tenant,sequence_value=tenant.sequence_value) 
> > > widget.save() 
> > > 
> > > That should do the trick. Another option could be using table 
> > > triggers to automate 
> > > that within a database table trigger(s). 
> > > 
> > > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 21:26:54 -0800 (PST) 
> > > Matt Cooper > wrote: 
> > > 
> > > > I'm building a multi-tenant application with a data model that 
> > > simplifies 
> > > > to: 
> > > > 
> > > > class Tenant(models.Model): 
> > > > name = models.CharField(max_length=50) 
> > > > 
> > > > class Widget(models.Model): 
> > > > owner = models.ForeignKey(Tenant) 
> > > > sequence_id =  
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I want Widget.sequence_id to work like an AutoField (that is, 
> > > automatically 
> > > > give me something unique and generally incrementing by 1) but 
> > > > scoped to 
> > > a 
> > > > single Widget.owner. So for instance, when Tenant A creates 3 
> > > > widgets, 
> > > they 
> > > > would get sequence_ids 1, 2, and 3. Then Tenant B comes along and 
> > > creates 2 
> > > > widgets; those widgets get sequence_ids 1 and 2. The tenant/user 
> > > > gets no control over the number, but it's something she'll see in 
> > > > the UI. AutoNumber is out because from the perspective of a 
> > > > single tenant, they should have sequential widget IDs. 
> > > > GUIDs/UUIDs are out because it needs 
> > > to 
> > > > be human-readable. 
> > > > 
> > > > I looked through docs on AutoField and unique_together. I turned 
> > > > StackOverflow upside down and only found this 
> > > > <
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18072586/django-autofield-increment>, 
> > > 
> > > > which isn't quite what I want. I didn't see anything on 
> > > djangopackages.com 
> > > > that would solve my problem, though I could have missed it. 
> > > > 
&

Re: Desired: Field behavior like AutoField + unique_with

[Matt Cooper]

Thanks Jani, good to hear someone has gone down this road before. Since you 
did it in code, is there a reason you kept a sequence value on Tenant 
rather than using Widget.objects.aggregate(Max(Widget.sequence_value)) ? I 
ask because for my app, Widget is actually just one of several cases where 
I need this pattern. If I could keep all the book-keeping on the model with 
the constraint, that seems cleaner to me. But, of course, I'm not willing 
to pay a huge performance or corruption penalty just for vague ideological 
purity :)

Thanks again!
~matt

On Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 5:07:21 AM UTC-8, Jani Tiainen wrote:
>
> I've done something similiar. 
>
> Only way to do that is that you need to upkeep that tenant sequence_id 
> manually, 
>
> So doing something like: 
>
> class Tenant(models.Model): 
> name = models.CharField(max_length=50) 
> sequence_value = models.IntegerField() 
>
> and in a code: 
>
> tenant = Tenant.object.get(id=tenant_id).select_for_update()  # 
> Pessimistic locking 
> tenant.sequence_value = tenant.sequence_value + 1 
> tenant.save() 
>
> widget = Widget(owner=tenant,sequence_value=tenant.sequence_value) 
> widget.save() 
>
> That should do the trick. Another option could be using table triggers to 
> automate 
> that within a database table trigger(s). 
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 21:26:54 -0800 (PST) 
> Matt Cooper > wrote: 
>
> > I'm building a multi-tenant application with a data model that 
> simplifies 
> > to: 
> > 
> > class Tenant(models.Model): 
> > name = models.CharField(max_length=50) 
> > 
> > class Widget(models.Model): 
> > owner = models.ForeignKey(Tenant) 
> > sequence_id =  
> > 
> > 
> > I want Widget.sequence_id to work like an AutoField (that is, 
> automatically 
> > give me something unique and generally incrementing by 1) but scoped to 
> a 
> > single Widget.owner. So for instance, when Tenant A creates 3 widgets, 
> they 
> > would get sequence_ids 1, 2, and 3. Then Tenant B comes along and 
> creates 2 
> > widgets; those widgets get sequence_ids 1 and 2. The tenant/user gets no 
> > control over the number, but it's something she'll see in the UI. 
> > AutoNumber is out because from the perspective of a single tenant, they 
> > should have sequential widget IDs. GUIDs/UUIDs are out because it needs 
> to 
> > be human-readable. 
> > 
> > I looked through docs on AutoField and unique_together. I turned 
> > StackOverflow upside down and only found this 
> > <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18072586/django-autofield-increment>, 
>
> > which isn't quite what I want. I didn't see anything on 
> djangopackages.com 
> > that would solve my problem, though I could have missed it. 
> > 
> > Basically, has anyone done something like this before and have a 
> suggested 
> > pattern? 
> > 
> > Thanks! 
> > ~matt 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Django users" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to django-users...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to django...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users. 
> > To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/37fd32e7-28dd-4c10-8451-b0d705a3e52e%40googlegroups.com.
>  
>
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/1ab4b16d-df97-4412-9622-22cf3b344f80%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Desired: Field behavior like AutoField + unique_with

[Matt Cooper]

I'm building a multi-tenant application with a data model that simplifies 
to:

class Tenant(models.Model):
name = models.CharField(max_length=50)

class Widget(models.Model):
owner = models.ForeignKey(Tenant)
sequence_id = 


I want Widget.sequence_id to work like an AutoField (that is, automatically 
give me something unique and generally incrementing by 1) but scoped to a 
single Widget.owner. So for instance, when Tenant A creates 3 widgets, they 
would get sequence_ids 1, 2, and 3. Then Tenant B comes along and creates 2 
widgets; those widgets get sequence_ids 1 and 2. The tenant/user gets no 
control over the number, but it's something she'll see in the UI. 
AutoNumber is out because from the perspective of a single tenant, they 
should have sequential widget IDs. GUIDs/UUIDs are out because it needs to 
be human-readable.

I looked through docs on AutoField and unique_together. I turned 
StackOverflow upside down and only found this 
, 
which isn't quite what I want. I didn't see anything on djangopackages.com 
that would solve my problem, though I could have missed it.

Basically, has anyone done something like this before and have a suggested 
pattern?

Thanks!
~matt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-users.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-users/37fd32e7-28dd-4c10-8451-b0d705a3e52e%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Xeround DB engine compatability

[Matt Cooper]

Hi all

I'm looking at using Xeround as a DB backend. I've already come up against 
that as it detects a version > 5.0.3 it tries to use savepoints which are 
not supported. 
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10193449/how-to-use-django-1-4-with-xeround

Happy to carry on and try all the features but just wondering if anyone can 
immediately spot other features that Django requires that Xeround doesn't.

Xeround compatability here:
http://xeround.com/developers/release-notes/

Matt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django users" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/django-users/-/Vmf4W0cFuDcJ.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
django-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en.