Hello. I responded yesterday but it seems the mail did not make it. Here it goes and sorry for the duplicate...
On 3.3.2016 21:09, Ladislav Lenart wrote: > Hello. > > > On 3.3.2016 19:52, Brian Cherinka wrote: >> Yeah, that might ultimately be the best way to go if things get too >> complicated. >> I think people might not want to re-run several lines of code to change >> some >> parameters but that could be a thing I make them just live with. > > I think that the two concerns, namely: > * update SQLAlchemy query / rebuild it from scratch > * execute query manually / automatically > are independent. > > You could implement the following background task: > * parse the code snippet > * build the query from it / report errors to the user > * execute the query > * show / update results to the user > and (re)schedule it in the near future whenever the user edits her code > snippet > (like an incremental search). > > But this starts to get complicated, i.e. the usual threading caveats apply. > > HTH, > > Ladislav Lenart > > >> On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 3:06:57 AM UTC-5, Ladislav Lenart wrote: >> >> Hello. >> >> I think it would be (much) easier to simply rebuild the query from >> scratch >> before each run. IMHO the time to build the query is not that big a >> factor to >> justify the added source code complexity. >> >> HTH, >> >> Ladislav Lenart >> >> >> On 3.3.2016 05:47, Brian Cherinka wrote: >> > >> > >> > well you need a list of names so from a mapped class you can get: >> > >> > for name in inspect(MyClass).column_attrs.keys(): >> > if name in <whatever my filter thing is>: >> > q = q.filter_by(name = bindparam(name)) >> > >> > though I'd think if you're dynamically building the query you'd >> have the >> > values already, not sure how it's working out that you need >> bindparam() >> > at that stage... >> > >> > >> > Ok. I'll try this out. This looks like it could work. I think I need >> it for >> > the cases where a user specifies a query with condition e.g. X < 10, >> runs it, >> > gets results. Then they want to change the condition to X < 5 and >> rerun the >> > query. As far as I know, if condition 2 gets added into the filter, >> you >> would >> > have both X < 10 and X < 5 in your filter expression. Rather than a >> single >> > updated X < 5. >> > >> > What would be even more awesome is if there was a way to also update >> the >> > operator in place as well. So changing X < 10 to X > 10. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sqlalchemy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sqlalchemy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sqlalchemy@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sqlalchemy. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
