*I'm not convinced this would be as useful for `filter()` though as I don't*
*recall wanting to retrieve a set of objects matching a value I know will*
*be unique.*
The .filter() could be used for update
e.g.:
Mymodel.objects.filter(1).update(key=value)
This is also bringing consistency in the code, but I agree this could be
misleading.
The .get() is the main purpose.
*Something to keep in mind as well is whether or not we want to allow*
*this to be coupled with extra args and kwargs.*
Currently only kwargs are supposed to be used with get/filter. The only
args that can be used currently are Q() objects (and couples but I think
it's an issue).
This proposed design suggestion is to also allow scalar values (strings,
int, etc) too.
On Wednesday, 31 October 2018 18:12:53 UTC, charettes wrote:
>
> As I've mentioned on the ticket I've been wishing get(pk) could translate
> to get(pk=pk) for a while but I never got to suggest it. Probably because I
> didn't feel like adding (pk=...) was really that long. I'd note that most
> of the
> times I wished this existed was when doing some object manipulations
> through a Django shell.
>
> I'm not convinced this would be as useful for `filter()` though as I don't
> recall wanting to retrieve a set of objects matching a value I know will
> be unique.
>
> Something to keep in mind as well is whether or not we want to allow
> this to be coupled with extra args and kwargs.
>
> e.g.
>
> Book.objects.get(isbn, author__name='Daniel Roy Greenfeld')
>
> I'd be in favor of preventing pk and kwarg or Q args mixing.
>
> Count me +1 for the get() case and -1 for the filter() one.
>
> Simon
>
> Le mercredi 31 octobre 2018 13:13:34 UTC-4, Antwan a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>> I'm creating this topic to see if there is interest to implement
>> positional arguments in queryset filtering.
>>
>> Current situation
>>
>> Currently the only way to use positional arguments to filter can be
>> either:
>>
>>- Passing a single or multiple Q objects:
>>
>>MyClass.objects.filter(Q(key=value))
>>MyClass.objects.filter(Q(key=value), Q(other_key=value))
>>
>>
>>
>>- Passing a couple is also working (not sure if this is a happy
>>accident, should it be removed?)
>>
>>MyClass.objects.filter((key, value))
>>
>>
>>
>>- Combination of both is also proven to work
>>
>>MyClass.objects.filter((key, value), Q(other_key=value))
>>
>>
>>
>> Suggestion
>>
>> This feature suggestion is to leverage the case when a non-Q / non couple
>> object is passed, so it implicitly interpreted as the value for the model's
>> pk.
>>
>> This could ease/simplify code by omitting pk when this is the only
>> filter used:
>>
>>
>> MyClass.objects.get(value)
>> # Translates into: MyClass.objects.get(pk=value)
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>> MyClass.objects.filter(value)
>> # Translates into: MyClass.objects.filter(pk=value)
>>
>>
>> or
>>
>>
>> MyClass.objects.filter(Q(value))
>> # Translates into: MyClass.objects.filter(Q(pk=value))
>>
>>
>> Do you think it's worth it? It could be leveraged to simplify many
>> situations.
>> I'd be happy to proceed to the development myself if this is something
>> gathering interest.
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django developers (Contributions to Django itself)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/django-developers.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-developers/169297f4-3b10-4677-8197-805acb7ad283%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
