Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  Simon
 |  Charette
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  closed
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  1|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Mariusz Felisiak ):

 * status:  assigned => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed


Comment:

 In [changeset:"8b4a43dda702fe72c254388f1be2c0c75b7a3efc" 8b4a43d]:
 {{{
 #!CommitTicketReference repository=""
 revision="8b4a43dda702fe72c254388f1be2c0c75b7a3efc"
 Fixed #29545 -- Fixed using filter lookups againts nested subquery
 expressions.

 Made sql.Where resolve lhs of its child nodes. This is necessary to
 allow filter lookups against nested subquery expressions to properly
 resolve their OuterRefs to Cols.

 Thanks Oskar Persson for the simplified test case.
 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.3ac99f52ffed711559cdbc44e940a513%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  Simon
 |  Charette
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  1|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-

Comment (by Can Sarıgöl):

 Sorry I misinterpreted. Simon is right. Thanks for the explanation.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.8a516ddc482abe722ebbba3cf0f717ff%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  Simon
 |  Charette
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  1|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Simon Charette):

 * has_patch:  0 => 1


Comment:

 https://github.com/django/django/pull/11677

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.f6921cf968d6700d51307d996b4a9fd5%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  Simon
 |  Charette
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  assigned
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Simon Charette):

 * status:  new => assigned
 * owner:  nobody => Simon Charette


Comment:

 This is more of a brain dump than a final resolution but I think I might
 have nailed it down. I thought I'd share how I came with what I believe is
 the solution to share a bit of knowledge about how the ORM resolves
 expressions.

 By breaking the query construction in multiple statements and adding
 breakpoints in `OuterRef.resolve_expression` and
 `ResolvedOuterRef.resolve_expression` I noticed that the latter was being
 called '''after''' the complete query construction when it was being
 executed which should not happen. In short all expressions should be
 resolved to their '''final''' expression at this point and in the case of
 `OuterRef` and `ResolvedOuterRef` they should be `Col` instances.

 I then assumed that something must not be have been esolved properly so I
 added a breakpoint before the `print(qs)` and dug into `qs.query`
 internals. By walking the chain of
 `qs.query.annotations['has_item'].query` I noticed that
 `.where.children[0].lhs` was and `Exist` instance and that its
 `.query.where.children[0].rhs` happened to be a `ResolvedOuterRef`
 instance. I then knew that this was the culprit as it should have been a
 `Col` by this point. I also noticed that the copy of the `Exists` present
 as the `.has_tag` expression had its `.query.where.children[0].rhs`
 correctly resolved to a `Col` so I adjusted the test to replace the
 unresolved reference to the `Col` and got the test passing.


 {{{#!python
 def test_nested_outerref(self):
 number = Number.objects.create(num=5)
 Node.objects.create(num=5)
 nested_query = Node.objects.filter(num=OuterRef(OuterRef('num')))
 nested_exist = Exists(nested_query)
 query = Item.objects.annotate(
 has_tag=nested_exist,
 ).filter(has_tag=True)
 exists = Exists(query)
 qs = Number.objects.annotate(
 has_item=exists
 )
 col =
 
qs.query.annotations['has_item'].query.annotations['has_tag'].query.where.children[0].rhs
 
qs.query.annotations['has_item'].query.where.children[0].lhs.query.where.children[0].rhs
 = col
 print(str(qs.query))
 self.assertEqual(qs.get(), number)
 }}}

 From that point I knew that there was an issue resolving
 `qs.query.annotations['has_item'].query.where.children[0].lhs` and then I
 remembered that `sql.Where.resolve_expression` was performing resolving
 for `.rhs` of lookups but not for `.lhs` which brought me to
 [https://github.com/django/django/compare/master...charettes:ticket-29545
 this still incomplete patch] that happens to solve this issue and pass the
 test suite on SQLite so far.

 I've assigned the ticket to myself as I plan to submit the above branch
 for review in the next days. I wouldn't be surprised if it fixed a other
 issues related to subqueries and `OuterRef`.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.d2282a1bbfe2eb29938c13024f44ab87%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-

Comment (by Simon Charette):

 Thanks for simplified test case Oskar, that's really valuable.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.0a6e8c2dc6ae5c311bcd71e99a360f2a%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  master
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Oskar Persson):

 * cc: Oskar Persson (added)
 * version:  2.0 => master


-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.91481e5c945c35fde0f6f6ad3dae52dc%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  2.0
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-

Comment (by Oskar Persson):

 I also ran into this just now and can confirm that the bug exists in both
 2.2.4 and master, tested with the models in tests/queries/models.py:


 {{{
 def test_nested_outerref(self):
 from .models import Item, Node, Number

 Number.objects.create(num=5)
 Node.objects.create(num=5)

 qs = Number.objects.annotate(
 has_item=Exists(
 Item.objects.annotate(
 has_tag=Exists(
 Node.objects.filter(num=OuterRef(OuterRef('num')))
 )
 ).filter(has_tag=True)
 )
 )
 print(qs)
 }}}

 This results in the following exception


 {{{
 django.core.exceptions.FieldError: Cannot resolve keyword 'num' into
 field. Choices are: cover, created,
 creator, creator_id, has_tag, id, modified, name, note, note_id, tags
 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.e7f51ab1511811336a16414bf7c2b771%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  2.0
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Can Sarıgöl):

 * cc: Can Sarıgöl (added)


Comment:

 IMO this query join order should be like this:

 {{{
 inner = Item.objects.filter(

 middle = Invoice.objects.filter(

 outer = Item.objects.filter(
 }}}

 If you want to use nested outerref, middle query has to contain foreign
 keys. Otherwise, this usage needs to include deep related field.


 {{{
 middle = Item.objects.filter(invoices=OuterRef('id'),).annotate(
 expensed=Exists(inner),
 owner=F('invoices__owner')
 ).filter(expensed=False,)
 }}}

 or maybe not necessary nested outerref

 {{{
 inner = Invoice.objects.filter(
 kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
 owner=OuterRef('invoices__owner'),
 items=OuterRef('id'),
 )
 }}}

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.7003a06ef1b44663e062f0e042a7c12a%40djangoproject.com.

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  Aaron Lisman |Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  2.0
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:  Accepted
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Changes (by Tim Graham):

 * stage:  Unreviewed => Accepted


Comment:

 I can't definitely say that it's a bug. Accepting for investigation.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
Django 
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django updates" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to django-updates+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to django-updates@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/django-updates/063.e3ed5e3f607c255fa0982cc2ee06f827%40djangoproject.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
   Reporter:  pwfff  |  Owner:  nobody
   Type:  Bug| Status:  new
  Component:  Database   |Version:  2.0
  layer (models, ORM)|
   Severity:  Normal |   Keywords:  outerref, subquery
   Triage Stage: |  Has patch:  0
  Unreviewed |
Needs documentation:  0  |Needs tests:  0
Patch needs improvement:  0  |  Easy pickings:  0
  UI/UX:  0  |
-+-
 I ran into this and made a test case for it. It seems similar to the test
 case above it. I'm not sure what's different about it and causing it to
 fail.

 Let me know if the query is just build wrong.

 {{{
 diff --git a/tests/expressions/models.py b/tests/expressions/models.py
 index 42e4a37bb0..164bda3b3d 100644
 --- a/tests/expressions/models.py
 +++ b/tests/expressions/models.py
 @@ -83,6 +83,28 @@ class SimulationRun(models.Model):
  return "%s (%s to %s)" % (self.midpoint, self.start, self.end)


 +class Customer(models.Model):
 +name = models.TextField()
 +
 +
 +class Item(models.Model):
 +pass
 +
 +
 +class Invoice(models.Model):
 +INVOICE = 'invoice'
 +EXPENSE = 'expense'
 +
 +KIND_CHOICES = (
 +(INVOICE, 'Invoice'),
 +(EXPENSE, 'Expense'),
 +)
 +
 +kind = models.CharField(choices=KIND_CHOICES, max_length=255,
 default=None)
 +owner = models.ForeignKey(Customer, models.CASCADE)
 +items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name='invoices')
 +
 +
  class UUIDPK(models.Model):
  id = models.UUIDField(primary_key=True, default=uuid.uuid4)

 diff --git a/tests/expressions/tests.py b/tests/expressions/tests.py
 index d1e622a2d4..2c50744fc8 100644
 --- a/tests/expressions/tests.py
 +++ b/tests/expressions/tests.py
 @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ from django.test.utils import Approximate

  from .models import (
  UUID, UUIDPK, Company, Employee, Experiment, Number, Result,
 SimulationRun,
 -Time,
 +Time, Customer, Item, Invoice
  )


 @@ -536,6 +536,55 @@ class BasicExpressionsTests(TestCase):
  # This is a contrived example. It exercises the double OuterRef
 form.
  self.assertCountEqual(outer, [first, second, third])

 +def test_nested_subquery_outer_ref_3(self):
 +customer = Customer.objects.create(name='Test Customer')
 +other_customer = Customer.objects.create(name='Ohter Customer')
 +
 +unexpensed_invoice = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
 owner=customer)
 +unexpensed_item_1 = Item.objects.create()
 +unexpensed_invoice.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
 +
 +partially_expensed_invoice =
 Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE, owner=customer)
 +expense_1 = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
 owner=customer)
 +expensed_item_1 = Item.objects.create()
 +unexpensed_item_2 = Item.objects.create()
 +partially_expensed_invoice.items.add(expensed_item_1,
 unexpensed_item_2)
 +expense_1.items.add(expensed_item_1)
 +
 +expensed_invoice = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
 owner=customer)
 +Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE, owner=customer)
 +expensed_item_2 = Item.objects.create()
 +expensed_invoice.items.add(expensed_item_2)
 +expense_1.items.add(expensed_item_2)
 +
 +other_invoice = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
 owner=other_customer)
 +other_invoice.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
 +other_expense = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
 owner=other_customer)
 +other_expense.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
 +
 +inner = Invoice.objects.filter(
 +kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
 +owner=OuterRef(OuterRef('owner')),
 +items=OuterRef('id'),
 +)
 +middle = Item.objects.filter(
 +invoices=OuterRef('id'),
 +).annotate(
 +expensed=Exists(inner),
 +).filter(
 +expensed=False,
 +)
 +outer = Invoice.objects.filter(
 +kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
 +owner=customer,
 +).annotate(
 +unexpensed=Exists(middle),
 +)
 +
 +self.assertTrue(outer.get(pk=unexpensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
 +
 self.assertTrue(outer.get(pk=partially_expensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
 +self.assertFalse(outer.get(pk=expensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
 +
  def test_nested_subquery_outer_ref_with_autofield(self):
  first = Time.objects.create(time='09:00')
  second = Time.objects.create(time='17:00')
 }}}

 {{{
 django.core.exceptions.FieldError: Cannot resolve keyword 'owner' into
 field. Choices are: 

Re: [Django] #29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.

[Django]

#29545: Nested OuterRef not looking on the right model for the field.
-+-
 Reporter:  pwfff|Owner:  nobody
 Type:  Bug  |   Status:  new
Component:  Database layer   |  Version:  2.0
  (models, ORM)  |
 Severity:  Normal   |   Resolution:
 Keywords:  outerref, subquery   | Triage Stage:
 |  Unreviewed
Has patch:  0|  Needs documentation:  0
  Needs tests:  0|  Patch needs improvement:  0
Easy pickings:  0|UI/UX:  0
-+-
Description changed by pwfff:

Old description:

> I ran into this and made a test case for it. It seems similar to the test
> case above it. I'm not sure what's different about it and causing it to
> fail.
>
> Let me know if the query is just build wrong.
>
> {{{
> diff --git a/tests/expressions/models.py b/tests/expressions/models.py
> index 42e4a37bb0..164bda3b3d 100644
> --- a/tests/expressions/models.py
> +++ b/tests/expressions/models.py
> @@ -83,6 +83,28 @@ class SimulationRun(models.Model):
>  return "%s (%s to %s)" % (self.midpoint, self.start, self.end)
>

> +class Customer(models.Model):
> +name = models.TextField()
> +
> +
> +class Item(models.Model):
> +pass
> +
> +
> +class Invoice(models.Model):
> +INVOICE = 'invoice'
> +EXPENSE = 'expense'
> +
> +KIND_CHOICES = (
> +(INVOICE, 'Invoice'),
> +(EXPENSE, 'Expense'),
> +)
> +
> +kind = models.CharField(choices=KIND_CHOICES, max_length=255,
> default=None)
> +owner = models.ForeignKey(Customer, models.CASCADE)
> +items = models.ManyToManyField(Item, related_name='invoices')
> +
> +
>  class UUIDPK(models.Model):
>  id = models.UUIDField(primary_key=True, default=uuid.uuid4)
>
> diff --git a/tests/expressions/tests.py b/tests/expressions/tests.py
> index d1e622a2d4..2c50744fc8 100644
> --- a/tests/expressions/tests.py
> +++ b/tests/expressions/tests.py
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ from django.test.utils import Approximate
>
>  from .models import (
>  UUID, UUIDPK, Company, Employee, Experiment, Number, Result,
> SimulationRun,
> -Time,
> +Time, Customer, Item, Invoice
>  )
>

> @@ -536,6 +536,55 @@ class BasicExpressionsTests(TestCase):
>  # This is a contrived example. It exercises the double OuterRef
> form.
>  self.assertCountEqual(outer, [first, second, third])
>
> +def test_nested_subquery_outer_ref_3(self):
> +customer = Customer.objects.create(name='Test Customer')
> +other_customer = Customer.objects.create(name='Ohter Customer')
> +
> +unexpensed_invoice =
> Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE, owner=customer)
> +unexpensed_item_1 = Item.objects.create()
> +unexpensed_invoice.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
> +
> +partially_expensed_invoice =
> Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE, owner=customer)
> +expense_1 = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
> owner=customer)
> +expensed_item_1 = Item.objects.create()
> +unexpensed_item_2 = Item.objects.create()
> +partially_expensed_invoice.items.add(expensed_item_1,
> unexpensed_item_2)
> +expense_1.items.add(expensed_item_1)
> +
> +expensed_invoice = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
> owner=customer)
> +Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE, owner=customer)
> +expensed_item_2 = Item.objects.create()
> +expensed_invoice.items.add(expensed_item_2)
> +expense_1.items.add(expensed_item_2)
> +
> +other_invoice = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
> owner=other_customer)
> +other_invoice.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
> +other_expense = Invoice.objects.create(kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
> owner=other_customer)
> +other_expense.items.add(unexpensed_item_1)
> +
> +inner = Invoice.objects.filter(
> +kind=Invoice.EXPENSE,
> +owner=OuterRef(OuterRef('owner')),
> +items=OuterRef('id'),
> +)
> +middle = Item.objects.filter(
> +invoices=OuterRef('id'),
> +).annotate(
> +expensed=Exists(inner),
> +).filter(
> +expensed=False,
> +)
> +outer = Invoice.objects.filter(
> +kind=Invoice.INVOICE,
> +owner=customer,
> +).annotate(
> +unexpensed=Exists(middle),
> +)
> +
> +self.assertTrue(outer.get(pk=unexpensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
> +
> self.assertTrue(outer.get(pk=partially_expensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
> +self.assertFalse(outer.get(pk=expensed_invoice.pk).unexpensed)
> +
>  def