[Fingel]

No description provided.

[jchate6]

Do we have a test for trying to get_or_create an object where the unique constraints are identical but fields that are not checked for uniqueness differ?
I'm still concerned that without something like this, get_or_create will fail to get because they are too different, but also fail to create because they are too similiar.

What should happen in that case?

[Fingel]

I still don't follow. If get_or_create() fails to create because of a uniqueness check, how is that different than just .create()? It should fail, even if the non-indexed columns differ. And it should also not return an existing object, if the non-indexed fields are different. I think in the case you are thinking of, you just don't pass in the non-indexed fields? There is no requirement to pass in every field to get_or_create.

[jchate6]

I think I disagree. It feels like if two objects are so similar that we would not create a new one, I would want the get_or_create to return to me the one that is similar. Also, not passing the non-indexed fields prevents me from creating my full object with that command, and fundamentally changes the use and expected behavior for get_or_create in tomtoolkit.
I basically HAVE to wrap every get_or_create in a try/except.

[Fingel]

get_or_create to return to me the one that is similar

This sounds like you are describing a heuristic, not how get or create normally works. We can write this as a different method, but I wouldn’t override it. I think would be fine as domain specific logic at the call site instead of overriding Django built ins.

[jchate6]

That makes sense. I guess I'd like to see some tests that run this scenario for the places we rely on get_or_create in the code.

[Fingel]

I added a few tests which look like how get_or_create is used in the alerce broker:

tom_base/tom_alerts/brokers/alerce.py

Line 570 in c0fe653

def process_reduced_data(self, target, alert=None):

Though it doesn't really feel like the specific case the overriden method was designed for. I couldn't find any calls in tom_base that look like they were, maybe in an external app?