Updated User model variable names

[del9ra]

Fixes #429

What changes did you make?

• Updated names and added the new items in views.py, conftest.py, test_models.py, test_apis.py, admin.py, serializers.py and models.py
• Added a new UserManager model that doesn't use email because of the issues with email field
• Wrote a test for the new relationships this model has with UserStatusType and PracticeArea
• Wrote a test to check that the old names will return errors
• Added an action item to issue Create Table: referrer #68 to uncomment the code line we commented out when that issue's table is created.
• Generated a schema table for User, post it in a comment below and added a link to it in the Update Schema dependency issue.

Why did you make the changes (we will use this info to test)?

• to include new fields and have the correct names for fields

[fyliu]

From slack after looking at error output from ./scripts/test.sh -x (the -x stops it after the first failure)

error output excerpt

create_user taking in an email parameter is a problem.

...
core/tests/conftest.py:116: in admin
    return django_user_model.objects.create_user(
/usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/django/contrib/auth/models.py:161: in create_user
    return self._create_user(username, email, password, **extra_fields)
/usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/django/contrib/auth/models.py:153: in _create_user
    user = self.model(username=username, email=email, **extra_fields)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

self = <User 1a0a9b03-cb5b-4d1a-9e46-b683a87f9188>, args = ()
kwargs = {'email': ''}, cls = <class 'core.models.User'>
opts = <Options for User>, _setattr = <built-in function setattr>
_DEFERRED = <Deferred field>
fields_iter = <tuple_iterator object at 0x7f8040cb2800>
val = zoneinfo.ZoneInfo(key='America/Los_Angeles')
field = <timezone_field.fields.TimeZoneField: time_zone>
is_related_object = False
property_names = frozenset({'is_anonymous', 'is_authenticated', 'is_django_user', 'pk'})
...

1:55 AM
Fang
ah okay. It looks like Django's default user comes with username, email, password fields
2:02 AM
Fang
I found a tutorial that does something similar to what we want: https://heemayl.net/posts/django-custom-user-model-without-username-field-and-using-email-in-place-of-it/
2:06 AM
The key is to create a new UserManager class that doesn't use email
2:10 AM
Just copy the one from django and modify it. You can get a copy of it with this command: docker-compose exec web cat /usr/local/lib/python3.10/site-packages/django/contrib/auth/models.py
2:11 AM
I got the path from one of the error messages
2:12 AM
You should put a comment above the manager code saying that it's based on the UserManager from django 4.2 or whatever we're using right now
2:14 AM
yes, 4.2. I got the version number from /app/requirements.in
2:17 AM
that way, if it stops working when we upgrade to django 5.2, whoever's doing the upgrade will know they might need to copy some lines over from the same code in 5.2
2:37 AM
Fang
Anyway. the issue we have here is that we're doing something different from what django provides. Ideally, we should just use what django gives us so that upgrades can be done smoothly. But django lets us override it if we really need to. Maybe we can ask Nicole and Bonnie to provide descriptions for other email fields and when each one would be added and used. It would be good to put that in the documentation to explain what they all are for VRMS to know how to use each one.

[shmonks]

Just converting this to draft for now, @del9ra

[del9ra]

Just converting this to draft for now, @del9ra

Understood, thanks!

[ExperimentsInHonesty]

Need to review with @Neecolaa the user table... this PR has not merged yet. See PD: Table and field explanations spreadsheet with filter user

[ExperimentsInHonesty]

@del9ra the referred_by field by default should be null unless the user provides other information. Also change the name of the field to referrer. Once you fix that, please resubmit for review

[fyliu]

I think this field is just a FK relation rather than many-to-many.

Also, you should delete the "current_practice_area" comment above as well.