Opened 13 years ago

Closed 9 years ago

#16955 closed Bug (duplicate)

Querying on the reverse of a FK with the wrong class silently returns bad data

Reported by: Jeremy Dunck Owned by: David Gouldin
Component: Database layer (models, ORM) Version: 1.3
Severity: Normal Keywords:
Cc: David Gouldin Triage Stage: Accepted
Has patch: yes Needs documentation: no
Needs tests: no Patch needs improvement: yes
Easy pickings: no UI/UX: no


class Author(Model):

class Book(Model):
    author = ForeignKey(Author, related_name='books')

class Foo(Model):

>>> a = Author.objects.create()
>>> b  = Book.objects.create(author=a)
>>> foo = Foo.objects.create(pk=999)
>>> Author.objects.filter(books=foo)

I would expect this to throw an exception because a Foo is not a Book. Instead, the Foo is coerced to its ID, which is then used as the PK for the reverse query.

This also affects ManyToManyField with through (effectively a reverse FK).

Attachments (3)

16955.diff (4.8 KB ) - added by David Gouldin 13 years ago.
16955-2.patch (6.5 KB ) - added by Nate Bragg 13 years ago.
Fixed PEP8ness and tests, per my previous comment
16955-2.2.patch (6.1 KB ) - added by Nate Bragg 13 years ago.
Fixed tests only

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (20)

comment:1 by Bas Peschier, 13 years ago

Triage Stage: UnreviewedAccepted

Indeed, when using a Foo with an id also available in Author:

>>> foo2 = Foo.objects.create(pk=1)
>>> Author.objects.filter(books=foo2)
[<Author: Author object>]

comment:2 by David Gouldin, 13 years ago

Cc: David Gouldin added
Owner: changed from nobody to David Gouldin

by David Gouldin, 13 years ago

Attachment: 16955.diff added

comment:3 by David Gouldin, 13 years ago

Has patch: set

comment:4 by David Gouldin, 13 years ago

The test which was removed is no longer a valid use case. Passing the wrong model type to a queryset filter kwarg should raise a TypeError, even in the instance where the PKs happen to always be the same. The proper way to perform such a test would be to use concrete model inheritance, in which case isinstance would return True and the check I've added would pass.

comment:5 by Nate Bragg, 13 years ago

Patch needs improvement: set

Your patch still applies cleanly, and there are no unexpected test failures. After careful consideration toying with alternatives, I agree with your solution. Two things though:

For the sake of PEP8ness, could you put your imports at the top? Or did you have a good reason to do your imports immediately preceeding your check?

Also, in the OneToOneTests.test_foreign_key edit, why delete that line, instead of change it from p to r?

In fact, that whole section looks like it always ought to have been closer to this:

# Delete the restaurant; the waiter should also be removed
r = Restaurant.objects.get(

It was only passing by the fortuitous accident that == Fix that up, and this patch looks good to me.

by Nate Bragg, 13 years ago

Attachment: 16955-2.patch added

Fixed PEP8ness and tests, per my previous comment

comment:6 by Nate Bragg, 13 years ago

Patch needs improvement: unset
Triage Stage: AcceptedReady for checkin

by Nate Bragg, 13 years ago

Attachment: 16955-2.2.patch added

Fixed tests only

comment:7 by Nate Bragg, 13 years ago

Ignore my previous patch - those imports were in-function to avoid a circular dependency (which is what I get for not looking before leaping). This one just corrects the issues in test_foreign_key.

comment:8 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 12 years ago

Patch needs improvement: set
Triage Stage: Ready for checkinAccepted

While looking how related field does its get_prep_lookup() I come up with this comment (models/fields/

def pk_trace:
        # Value may be a primary key, or an object held in a relation.
        # If it is an object, then we need to get the primary key value for
        # that object. In certain conditions (especially one-to-one relations),
        # the primary key may itself be an object - so we need to keep drilling
        # down until we hit a value that can be used for a comparison.

So, it seems to me it is intentional that you can use o2o fields like in the one_to_one tests. The changes to o2o handling need further investigation.

My main concern is that It should be the field's responsibility to do the validation of the values. It does not belong into QuerySet.add_filter. It would be better to do "lookup, values = field.check_lookup_values(lookup, values)" at the point the check is in the patch. By default the method just returns lookup, values, but it could raise TypeError or do something to the values or lookup if needed. If this was done, the check could use the code of _pk_trace directly, and thus the check and actual implementation would be guaranteed to match.

comment:9 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 12 years ago

Maybe a model instance method _get_field_value(field) which checks that the field exists in the instance and then gets its value is the way to go. This way because we need to allow also using parent classes:

p = Place.objects.get(somecond)

is a valid query if Place and Restaurant have the same primary key field.

comment:10 by Claude Paroz, 11 years ago

#19669 was a duplicate.

comment:11 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 11 years ago

This will be horrible to fix. At least the following work currently, also with multistep chains:


class A:

class B:
    a = models.OneToOneField(A, primary_key=True)


This means that we must check issubclass in two directions + primary key chain from value to the related model, and from related model to value.

The sanest fixes would be to precalculate a set of allowed models in Model._meta. The calculation of the set of allowed models will still be ugly, but at least checking would be somewhat fast... Patches welcome.

Another way is to disallow the OneToOneField related lookups. The issubclass checks are easy to do.

comment:12 by Luke Plant, 11 years ago

There is an argument for not fixing this: any time you add issubclass or isinstance checks you are breaking duck-typing.

I have seen Django code where there were 'business' objects that wrapped model objects, and sometimes, IIRC, were used interchangeably. Fixing this bug might potentially break such code.

I'm also not entirely convinced that the removed/changed tests ought to be invalid use cases. This is certainly a backwards incompatible change.

comment:13 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 11 years ago

I am sure it is possible to do the validity checks in a way that doesn't break duck typing, and preserves the OneToOneField behaviour. The _pk_trace code could do validity checks only if the value is subclass of model. But doing the OneToOneField preservation will likely be ugly.

If a nice patch surfaces I do think it is a good idea to add the check. It is not a good idea to do a backwards compatibility break just for the check.

comment:14 by Aymeric Augustin, 11 years ago

#20141 was a duplicate.

comment:15 by Anssi Kääriäinen, 11 years ago

The patch to #19385 did extensive changes to how foreign key lookup value checks are done. This will very likely need a revisit. It is now impossible to use wrong model class in lookups, but the current way is very likely too restrictive. Lets find out problematic cases and fix them...

comment:16 by Collin Anderson, 9 years ago

I believe this is fixed now.

comment:17 by Tim Graham, 9 years ago

Resolution: duplicate
Status: newclosed

Yes, duplicate of #14334.

Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.
Back to Top