@kalekseev - Could you talk me through this?

My understanding is that it's resolving an issue in#7438, is that correct?

@kalekseev - Could you talk me through this?

My understanding is that it's resolving an issue in#7438, is that correct?

UPDATE: Yes, this pr is supposed to fix the initial implementation of UniqueConstraint support but at the moment it doesn't work. The problem is that DRF doesn't check if fields in data match the unique constraint condition or not, so for example constraint is:

            models.UniqueConstraint(                name="unique_constraint_model_together_uniq2",                fields=('race_name', 'position'),                condition=models.Q(fancy_conditions__gte=10),            )

we have record in db that should be unique

        UniqueConstraintModel.objects.create(            race_name='condition',            position=1,            global_id=10,            fancy_conditions=10        )

The data below should be valid because it hasfancy_conditions=9 that doesn't match constraint conditionmodels.Q(fancy_conditions__gte=10):

       serializer = UniqueConstraintSerializer(data={            'race_name': 'condition',            'position': 1,            'global_id': 11,            'fancy_conditions': 9,        })

but this should fail

      serializer = UniqueConstraintSerializer(data={            'race_name': 'condition',            'position': 1,            'global_id': 11,            'fancy_conditions': 11,        })

@kalekseev - Could you talk me through this?

My understanding is that it's resolving an issue in#7438, is that correct?

@tomchristie I think this PR is ready for review, I described issue in previous comment, the fix is here

https://github.com/encode/django-rest-framework/pull/9360/files#diff-9240f7dfb9eb2cace23eef00e4c922d6e2b6e85dc58b3c9d804e78c6c6227614R27-R34 the rest is just support code to perform that check (make sure that conditional fields values are present in serializer to perform check against condition).

The condition check is actually copy of code fromhttps://github.com/django/django/blob/7ba2a0db20c37a5b1500434ca4ed48022311c171/django/db/models/constraints.py#L672

we have this separate PR which seems to fix a regression, can you guys please check?#9482

I do not know how the situation is right now but I noticed that when upgrading from the 3.14.0 version to 3.15.2 my condition started to broke. Here is the model:

`
class DailyDataRecord(SynchronizationRecord):

date = models.DateField(verbose_name='Data')is_active = models.BooleanField(default=False,verbose_name='Ativo')class Meta:    ordering= ['-date']    verbose_name='Registro diário'    verbose_name_plural='Registros diários'    abstract=True    constraints = [        models.UniqueConstraint(            fields=['date'],            condition=models.Q(is_active=True),            name='%(app_label)s_%(class)s_unique_active_dailyrecord_for_date'        )    ]

`

In the current state it stops to check the condition is_active=True and raises and exception if I try to create a new record with is_active=False for the same date.
Ps. The serializer is just a normal ModelSerializer with any model that extends of this class

Is a new version expected with this fix and others related like#9531? The support for UniqueConstraint is not complete and may cause issues…

@auvipy rebased

@auvipy No. I'm not comfortable with the way this has been merged, completely unclear behavior.

ops! Ok sorry! I thought comments were addressed! Going to revert this ASAP

Please do. We're really clear on#9130

This project should be neatly parked.

@tomchristie@auvipy I believe I addressed all comments as good as I can. If you have direct question I'm ready to answer them while I'm on that.

Please do. We're really clear on#9130

This project should be neatly parked.

It was a django orm compatibility PR. But doing anyway

We're really clear on#9130

This project should be neatly parked.

I thought that this PR fitted in the first category "Tracking any changes required by updates in Django versions" as Django replacesunique_together with the most powerful constraints API.

Hi@kalekseev, thank you for your work.

I think I found an issue in the way the serializer fields validator are being generated.
In my case I have the UniqueConstraint on fields that are foreign key and I see that the UniqueConstraint validators are not being generated for them.
I tried cloning the repository and modifying the models used in TestUniqueConstraintValidation test case by changing
fancy_conditions into a ForeignKey instead of IntegerField.

class FancyConditionModel(models.Model):    id = models.AutoField(primary_key=True)class UniqueConstraintModel(models.Model):    race_name = models.CharField(max_length=100)    position = models.IntegerField()    global_id = models.IntegerField()    fancy_conditions = models.ForeignKey(FancyConditionModel, null=True, on_delete=models.CASCADE)

Trying running the tests result in the following errors:

FAILED [100%]tests/test_validators.py:624 (TestUniqueConstraintValidation.test_single_field_uniq_validators)0 != 4Expected :4Actual   :0<Click to see difference>test_validators.py:640: in test_single_field_uniq_validators    assert len(validators) == 2 + extra_validators_qtyE   assert 0 == (2 + 2)E    +  where 0 = len([])

Is this an expected behaviour or am I missing something?

Do you think you could start a pull request with a failing test reproducing your problem? That might help us get the conversation going...

Hi@browniebroke I've created the#9678 merge request reproducing the problem.
Let me know if you need further information.