#28312 closed Bug (fixed)
ModelChoiceIterator uses cached length of queryset.
Reported by: | Sjoerd Job Postmus | Owned by: | François Freitag |
---|---|---|---|
Component: | Forms | Version: | 1.8 |
Severity: | Normal | Keywords: | |
Cc: | Triage Stage: | Accepted | |
Has patch: | yes | Needs documentation: | no |
Needs tests: | no | Patch needs improvement: | no |
Easy pickings: | no | UI/UX: | no |
Description
In Django 1.8 (but also master), ModelChoiceIterator
has the following implementation:
class ModelChoiceIterator: def __init__(self, field): self.field = field self.queryset = field.queryset def __iter__(self): if self.field.empty_label is not None: yield ("", self.field.empty_label) queryset = self.queryset.all() # Can't use iterator() when queryset uses prefetch_related() if not queryset._prefetch_related_lookups: queryset = queryset.iterator() for obj in queryset: yield self.choice(obj) def __len__(self): return (len(self.queryset) + (1 if self.field.empty_label is not None else 0)) def choice(self, obj): return (self.field.prepare_value(obj), self.field.label_from_instance(obj))
As can be seen, __iter__
actually does a .all()
to make sure it gets fresh results. However, __len__
does not. Also: it currently caches all objects inside self.queryset
, only releasing them again on shutdown which might be problematic if there are a lot of results (or even a few "large" results).
Suggested implementation
def __len__(self): return self.queryset.count() + (1 if self.field.empty_label is not None else 0))
Change History (11)
comment:1 by , 8 years ago
Component: | Uncategorized → Forms |
---|
comment:2 by , 8 years ago
The following two tests that show how I would expect the ModelMultipleChoiceField
to work. The first tests __iter__
(and works), the second tests __len__
(and fails: AssertionError: 3 != 4
).
diff --git a/tests/model_forms/tests.py b/tests/model_forms/tests.py index c85eb2a..3c6241d 100644 --- a/tests/model_forms/tests.py +++ b/tests/model_forms/tests.py @@ -1992,6 +1992,27 @@ class ModelMultipleChoiceFieldTests(TestCase): form = ArticleCategoriesForm(instance=article) self.assertCountEqual(form['categories'].value(), [self.c2.slug, self.c3.slug]) + def test_added_fields_gets_rendered(self): + f = forms.ModelMultipleChoiceField(Category.objects.all()) + self.assertEqual(list(f.choices), [ + (self.c1.pk, 'Entertainment'), + (self.c2.pk, "It's a test"), + (self.c3.pk, 'Third')]) + c4 = Category.objects.create( + name="Now you see me", slug="now", url="added") + self.assertEqual(list(f.choices), [ + (self.c1.pk, 'Entertainment'), + (self.c2.pk, "It's a test"), + (self.c3.pk, 'Third'), + (c4.pk, 'Now you see me')]) + + def test_added_fields_gets_counted(self): + f = forms.ModelMultipleChoiceField(Category.objects.all()) + self.assertEqual(len(f.choices), 3) + c4 = Category.objects.create( + name="Now you see me", slug="now", url="added") + self.assertEqual(len(f.choices), 4) + class ModelOneToOneFieldTests(TestCase): def test_modelform_onetoonefield(self):
This means that the "invariant" that len(f.choices) == len(list(f.choices))
does not hold.
In particular: note that (currently) the value is calculated just once: the first time __len__
is called. This caching is not limited to 'per request', but is cached for the lifetime of the process handling requests.
comment:3 by , 8 years ago
Perhaps this can be closed, as (our specific case) is resolved by #27563. My apologies.
Extra context:
We ran into this problem as our form contained logic as follows:
if len(self.fields['status'].choices) <= 1: self.fields.pop('status')
I tested this: count = 1: no field. Add a Status
, reload page: still no field. Turns out the count was being "cached". Since it is a Django 1.8 project, above fix is not taken into account, and the cached value did indeed live longer than the current request. Looking at the changes, I expect the behaviour to be correct in Django 2.0.
Even so: the ModelChoiceIterator
uses .all()
or .iterator()
in the __iter__
method, and thus forces obtaining a fresh value. But __len__
does not do so, and that is an inconsistency that might still qualify as a bug.
Are there any plans to backport #27563 to Django 1.8? I expect not, as it's past the "End of mainstream support".
comment:4 by , 8 years ago
Has patch: | set |
---|---|
Triage Stage: | Unreviewed → Accepted |
Yes, I think the current behavior of __len__()
seems inappropriate. PR
You are correct that 1.8 only receives security/data loss fixes at this time. This fix does not qualify for a backport to any stable branch based on our supported versions policy.
comment:5 by , 8 years ago
Patch needs improvement: | set |
---|
I've closed my PR, someone else is welcome to continue this.
comment:6 by , 7 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Status: | new → assigned |
comment:7 by , 7 years ago
Owner: | changed from | to
---|---|
Patch needs improvement: | unset |
I don't understand the "bug" aspect to the report. Can you give a test case that demonstrates incorrect behavior?
I understand the point about memory consumption. I guess switching to
count()
might be better, although it adds a query and could require some adapting ofassertNumQueries()
tests (there is one test in Django'smodel_forms
tests that breaks in this way).