#2160 closed defect (fixed)
Can't use value of 0 for primary key
Reported by: | fgutierrez AT aureal.com.pe | Owned by: | Adrian Holovaty |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | dev |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Design decision needed | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | yes | Patch needs improvement: | yes |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description (last modified by )
The DB API uses a 'bool(pk_val) == false' check to determine if a model instance is a new item needs to be INSERTed, or an existing entry that needs to be UPDATEd.
Most databases use PK's starting at 1, but if you try to manually use a pk value of 0, the object cannot be saved - it can only be recreated.
Attachments (2)
Change History (16)
comment:1 by , 19 years ago
Component: | Documentation → Database wrapper |
---|---|
Owner: | changed from | to
Severity: | major → critical |
comment:2 by , 19 years ago
Summary: | Documentation How Django knows to Update vs Insert not correct → How Django knows to Update vs Insert not correct for PK values that evaluates to False |
---|
comment:3 by , 18 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|---|
priority: | high → normal |
Severity: | critical → normal |
Summary: | How Django knows to Update vs Insert not correct for PK values that evaluates to False → Can't use value of 0 for primary key |
Version: | → SVN |
Original ticket description covered two problems. First problem was resubmitted as #3118, and has since been resolved. Ticket description has been revised to reflect the remaining problem.
comment:5 by , 18 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:6 by , 18 years ago
comment:7 by , 18 years ago
Resolution: | fixed |
---|---|
Status: | closed → reopened |
Needs a little bit more than just checking if the primary key is "None" - admin uses empty string as well as None to establish new objects.
by , 18 years ago
Attachment: | 0_pk.patch added |
---|
comment:8 by , 18 years ago
Has patch: | set |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
comment:9 by , 18 years ago
Needs tests: | set |
---|---|
Patch needs improvement: | set |
Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin → Design decision needed |
The approach of the 0_pk.2 patch isn't my ideal solution. The fact that the internal logic reads as 'bool(arg) or arg == 0' should be a warning flag; this doesn't make much sense as a logical construct, and doesn't scan well with standard python usage of truth values.
IMHO, the better fix for this problem would be to use the 'pk is None' logic from [4459], but modify the edit-inline code that breaks as a result of this approach. Keep in mind that edit-inlines will be cleaned up as a part of the newforms admin rewrite; if we can kill 2 birds with one stone, all the better.
comment:10 by , 18 years ago
Fair enough, but there's probably cases (either in the wild or elsewhere in the framework) where the pk could resolve to an empty string. Perhaps pk is None or pk == ''
would be enough?
comment:11 by , 18 years ago
pk is None or pk ==
is the right solution in the short term, but in the slightly-longer-than-short term (i.e., when newforms is rolled out as the default), I'm not so sure.
The larger design issue is 'should models autoconvert string arguments into value arguments'. The current behaviour uses to_python
method on model fields to convert strings into field values, with the side effect being that in-code instance definitions can also use strings. This conversion is migrating into the newforms fields. To me, this means that accepting strings as model values (which the model then converts) is behaviour that shouldn't be encouraged, which is what the
pk==
case is protecting (i.e., empty string as form-compliant null).
comment:12 by , 17 years ago
Whilst I completely agree with Russell's design philosophy here, reality gets in the way in practice. Oldforms exists and there are apps in the wild that create models using those idioms. So having pk_val being the empty string is going to be with us for a while, even beyond 1.0. I think we have to live with the slight ugliness. Ruling out certain valid primary key values to save a less-than-perfect test in the code feels like we are handicapping the wrong people.
comment:13 by , 17 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | reopened → closed |
comment:14 by , 16 years ago
(In [8616]) Removed oldforms, validators, and related code:
- Removed
Manipulator
,AutomaticManipulator
, and related classes. - Removed oldforms specific bits from model fields:
- Removed
validator_list
andcore
arguments from constructors. - Removed the methods:
get_manipulator_field_names
get_manipulator_field_objs
get_manipulator_fields
get_manipulator_new_data
prepare_field_objs_and_params
get_follow
- Renamed
flatten_data
method tovalue_to_string
for better alignment with its use by the serialization framework, which was the only remaining code usingflatten_data
.
- Removed
- Removed oldforms methods from
django.db.models.Options
class:get_followed_related_objects
,get_data_holders
,get_follow
, andhas_field_type
. - Removed oldforms-admin specific options from
django.db.models.fields.related
classes:num_in_admin
,min_num_in_admin
,max_num_in_admin
,num_extra_on_change
, andedit_inline
. - Serialization framework
Serializer.get_string_value
now calls the model fields' renamedvalue_to_string
methods.- Removed a special-casing of
models.DateTimeField
incore.serializers.base.Serializer.get_string_value
that's handled bydjango.db.models.fields.DateTimeField.value_to_string
.
- Removed
django.core.validators
:- Moved
ValidationError
exception todjango.core.exceptions
. - For the couple places that were using validators, brought over the necessary code to maintain the same functionality.
- Moved
- Introduced a SlugField form field for validation and to compliment the SlugField model field (refs #8040).
- Removed an oldforms-style model creation hack (refs #2160).
I have realized also that if i have that kind of PK values i could never update the object, i can get the object, change its values but once I use save then the exact same problem raises and Django tries to do an Insert, so raising a Duplicate Key exception.