Opened 5 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#31720 closed Cleanup/optimization (fixed)
Better documentation and defaults for BoolOr and BoolAnd
Reported by: | Alex Scott | Owned by: | David Chorpash |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Database layer (models, ORM) | Version: | 3.0 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Ready for checkin | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
The only documentation available (that I found at least) for Postgres DB functions is:
https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/3.0/ref/contrib/postgres/aggregates/
It would be really nice to have an example or two for each of those.
One issue I ran into with BoolOr
when I was doing something like BoolOr(Q('someCharField') == Value('someVal'))
(which in itself would be a great example to show), is an error:
'Cannot resolve expression type, unknown output_field'
Adding output_field=BooleanField()
seemed to solve it but this wasn't intuitive. Shouldn't the default output for BoolOr
be boolean? If so, it would be good to set it as such I think.
Change History (14)
follow-up: 2 comment:1 by , 5 years ago
Component: | contrib.postgres → Database layer (models, ORM) |
---|---|
Needs documentation: | set |
Owner: | set to |
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Type: | Uncategorized → Cleanup/optimization |
comment:2 by , 5 years ago
Thanks Simon for the quick response. I'm a bit of a n00b and have never really contributed a PR to an open source project but maybe this could be the first. Do you think setting the default is all that needs to be done? I can try to take a look over this next week (and read about how to contribute) and let you know if I think I'm capable.
Replying to Simon Charette:
A patch for both documentation and explicit
output_field
forBoolOr
andBoolAnd
would be welcome. The issue you're experiencing here is likely due to the factQ
andWhereNode
are markedconditional=True
but don't setoutput_field = models.BooleanField()
and thus the default behavior ofExpression._resolve_output_field
cannot be leveraged.
Are you interested in submitting a PR with these improvements?
comment:3 by , 5 years ago
Do you think setting the default is all that needs to be done?
yeah, defining BoolOr.output_field = models.BooleanField()
at the class level (for BoolAnd
as well) should be enough.
For the tests an extra method in tests/postgres_tests/test_aggregates.py for usage of Q
objects for both functions should be enough for each aggregate function.
e.g.
def test_bool_or_q_object(self): values = AggregateTestModel.objects.aggregate(boolor=BoolOr(Q(integer_field__gt=2)) self.assertEqual(values, {'boolor': False})
I think examples in the documentation would also be welcome.
comment:4 by , 4 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
I am interested in working this ticket. I know plenty of time has passed since this was last modified, but I'll give it up to Alex if he wants to give it a shot within the next day or so.
comment:5 by , 4 years ago
Thanks David! Please do. Day job work got in the way of me taking a stab at this and I'll continue to be busy for the next few weeks. So happy for you to take it.
comment:6 by , 4 years ago
Has patch: | set |
---|
Alex, I understand how that goes!
Simon, I submitted a PR and I wanted to make sure I set it up where I'm merging to the correct branch. This is the first time submitting a PR for a ticket where the version was not set to master.
Since the version is set to 3.0, I'm going to be merging into the stable/3.1.x. Is that correct?
comment:7 by , 4 years ago
Thanks for your PR Alex!
I left some comments on Github but you'll want to target the master
branch instead of stable/3.1.x
, mergers will take care of the backport if necessary.
I also think it might be worth documenting the usage of Q
objects for these aggregates and not solely boolean fields.
comment:8 by , 4 years ago
Thank you for the feedback, Simon!
I fixed the PR so that it's targeting master
. I also made adjustments based on the comments and added documentation for Q
objects.
comment:9 by , 4 years ago
Needs documentation: | unset |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Accepted → Ready for checkin |
comment:14 by , 4 years ago
Resolution: | → fixed |
---|---|
Status: | assigned → closed |
A patch for both documentation and explicit
output_field
forBoolOr
andBoolAnd
would be welcome. The issue you're experiencing here is likely due to the factQ
andWhereNode
are markedconditional=True
but don't setoutput_field = models.BooleanField()
and thus the default behavior ofExpression._resolve_output_field
cannot be leveraged.Are you interested in submitting a PR with these improvements?