>> cards = Card.objects.all()
>> if request.POST.get('brand') :
>> cards = cards.filter(brand = request.POST.get('brand'))
>> if request.POST.get('year') :
>> cards = cards.filter(year = request.POST.get('year'))
>
> Scott: Very cool, didn't know that was possible. I'm sure this
> does not hurt
This can even be dumped in a loop, using dictionary kwargs which
makes it more DRY:
cards = Card.objects.all()
for field in ('brand', 'year', 'color', 'size'):
if field in request.POST:
cards = cards.filter(**{
field: request.POST.get(field)
})
This separates out the common code, and reduces the field-names
to just being entries in a list for which the same action is
performed for each.
Given that they're ANDed together, you might even be able to just
build the dictionary, and then unpack that as your filter:
fieldnames = ('brand', 'year', 'color', 'size')
kwargs = dict(
(field, request.POST.get(field))
for field in fieldnames
if field in request.POST
)
cards = Card.objects.filter(**kwargs)
This *could* be reduced to a single (much more opaque) statement,
but I usually prefer to keep a little readability compared to
cards = Card.objects.filter(**dict(
(field, request.POST.get(field))
for field in ('brand', 'year', 'color', 'size')
if field in request.POST
))
I haven't delved into the new QS-RF code to see whether the
resulting queries differ vastly in meaning/efficiency, but I
remember there being a subtle difference between chained filters
vs. multiple filters applied at the same time (though that may
have only applied to related models).
-tim
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Django users" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-users@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/django-users?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
