I have a request model. A request has one classification. What I want to set up is to store a bunch of form fields in the DB. Their types, names etc. Different classifications will have different form fields for the user to fill out on a request form. So ultimately User creates new request with classification C, and they are presented with a form with the appropriate fields for classification C.
I would like the values stored in a table with the request. My question is how should this be modeled?
Request has one classification.
Classification has_many requests.
I'm just not sure what to do with the dynamic form fields. I would like to be able to create the fields and attach them to the classification. So if first name, last name are fields needed I wouldn't have to create them for every classification. Just create them once and set associate them with a classification through a join table.
Looking for advice on how to model this out and be able to easily reference them from a request.
Thanks! Any info or thoughts are appreciated.
I would say that you should first try to model it according the relational model as far as possible.
# beware of potential conflicts with this name as it clashes with core method in controllers
class Request < ApplicationRecord
has_many :classifications
end
class Classification < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :request
end
Model everything you know you can normalize. It's usually more then you think.
Dealing with data that doesn't adhere to a fixed schema can then be dealt with a few ways:
Just define all the fields and live with a few nulls here and there.
The Entity–attribute–value (EAV) pattern. This classic approach consists of a separate table where each row represents a value for a classification eg rails g model ClassificationAttribute classification:references attr_name attr_value. This is largely made obsolete by JSON data types.
A JSON/JSONB column. This additional column would be used to shove any unstructured data that cannot be normalized.
Serialized data columns. This also made obsolete by JSON/JSONB.
All of these can be combined with the Single Table Inheritance pattern.
If classification can be broken down into a limited number of variants you could consider Multiple Table Inheritance where you store the base data in the classification table and then use separate tables for the more specific data. Rails delegated_type feature can be used for this.
Your question is really confused and it is hard to understand what you are trying to achieve. But a few remarks:
You say "Request has one classification. Classification has_many requests" But if Request has one classification. Then classification should belongs to request. This way The Classification model holds a field called request_id (foreign key) that will help ActiveRecord link the two models together. (The child model is the one holding a foreign key)
If each is the parent of the other (has_one or has_many), then where is the foreign key ?
dynamic fields is not something possible. Your databse if hard coded: each field is declared in the relational database and Rails ActiveRecord's allows to access it easily and validate it. There is indeed a solution: have one of the model holds a JSON or JSONB field. And the value instead of being of the common types: string, text, integer.. be of JSON type and holds a value that is converted to a hash by Rails :
{
first_name: "Arthur",
last_name: "Smith",
age: "23"
}
This is pretty convenient for shopping carts as you can save an actual list of items rather than an association. Having an association would need to version your items changes (when the price of an item changes for example) which need some good engineering.
The question is : is it what you really want to do ? Because this is an option that doesn't fit all apps or uses.
Also you say the request depends on the classification. I have mentionned the problem of the foreign key above. But it seems weird that one of your record behavior is set by a direct relationship relationship. Who creates the classification ? Is it one of the app models such as the User ? an Admin ? or is it seeded by the app creator (then Classification is a standalone model) ? In this case the classification preexists the request the Request and maybe a has_and_belongs_to_many association (a join table ) would fit better...
Maybe give us a clearer view of what you want to achieve with real life examples so we can help further
Related
Let's say we have a collection of products, each with their own specifics e.g. price.
We want to issue invoices that contain said products. Using a direct association from Invoice to Product via :has_many is a no-go, since products may change and invoices must be immutable, thus resulting in an alteration of the invoice price, concept, etc.
I first thought of having an intermediate model like InvoiceProduct that would be associated to the Invoice and created from a Product. Each InvoiceProduct would be unique to its parent invoice and immutable. This option would increase the db size significantly as more invoices get issued though, so I think it is not a good option.
I'm now considering adding a serialized field to the invoice model with all the products information that are associated to it, a hash of the collection of items the invoice contains. This way we can have them in an immutable manner even if the product gets modified in the future.
I'm not sure of possible mid or long term downsides to this approach, though. Would like to hear your thoughts about it.
Also, if there's some more obvious approach that I might have overlooked I'd love to hear about it too.
Cheers
In my experience, the main downside of a serialized field approach vs the InvoiceProducts approach described above is decreased flexibility in terms of how you can use your invoice data going forward.
In our case, we have Orders and OrderItems tables in our database and use this data to generate sales analytics reports as well as customer Invoices.
Querying the OrderItem data to generate the sales reports we need is much faster and easier with this approach than it would be if the same data was stored as serialized data in the db.
No.
Serialized columns have no place in a modern application. They are a overused dirty hack from the days before native JSON/JSONB columns were widespread and have only downsides. The only exception to this rule is when you're using application side encryption.
JSON/JSONB columns can be used for a limited number of tasks where the data defies being defined by a fixed schema or if you're just storing raw json responses - but it should not be how you're defining your schema out of convenience because you're just shooting yourself in the foot. Its a special tool for special jobs.
The better alternative is to actually use good relational database design and store the price at the time of sale and everything else in a separate table:
class Order < ApplicationRecord
has_many :line_items
end
# rails g model line_item order:belongs_to product:belongs_to units:decimal unit_price:decimal subtotal:decimal
# The line item model is responsible for each item of an order
# and records the price at the time of order and any discounts applied to that line
class LineItem < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :product
end
class Product < ApplicationRecord
has_many :line_items
end
A serialized column is not immutable in any way - its actually more prone to denormalization and corruption as there are no database side constraints to ensure its correctness.
Tables can actually be made immutable in many databases by using triggers.
Advantages:
No violation of 1NF.
A normalized fixed data schema to work with - constraints ensure the validity of the data on the database level.
Joins are an extremely powerful tool and not as expensive as you might think.
You can actually access and make sense of the data outside of the application if needed.
DECIMAL data types. JSON/JSONB only has a single number type that uses IEEE 754 floating point.
You have an actual model and assocations instead of having to deal with raw hashes.
You can query the data in sane queries.
You can generate aggregates on the database level and use tools like materialized views.
I have a model Movie. That can have multiple Showtimes. Each Showtime is a pair of start and end times. Movies get saved in the database.
So although a Movie might have_many Showtimes, does that really need to be a model, or just a class, or some kind of custom tuple-like type?
I have seen where you can have a field with an array of values, but this would not be basic values as each value is a pair of times.
What is the best way to achieve this?
Showtimes should be a model, yes. Here are a few reasons:
Most relational databases don't natively support a tuple or array type.
What if you want to query movies occurring at a particular time? This would be difficult to do with a custom field, but would be relatively trivial with a separate table.
Most importantly, it enables better flexibility and extensibility through decreased coupling. For instance, does a showtime always exist exclusively to a movie? What if you want to extend your schema to add theatres where each theatre has many showtimes?
I have a product model. Each product has a different feature set, and has many features.
Instead of creating a product model that lists all of it's features (since this would involve including a lot of features I do not need, and when I needed to add new features it would be difficult) my thought was to create one column that stores a "features array". So, be it this product is a laptop, and I wanted to know the screen size, I could call:
#laptop.features[:screen]
=> "15.6 inch"
The problem with this that I am not sure there is a simple and practical way to build a form that could accept various features, then map them to the array.
I found a railscast (#196) that explains there is accepts_nested_attributes_for built into rails that would basically have using both a Product model and Feature model and just associate the two records.
Which way would be better? Is there a common approach for this sort of problem? And is there a way to have a form in your view that would accept features? (even if they are not directly apart of the Product model's database structure)
I would definitely go with a more flexible solution of having a has_many relationship with features. Then you can easily call #product.features to get the products features and the flexibility really shines when you want to do something like assign multiple attributes to screen. If you are throwing hashes into your database you wouldn't be able to add two attributes (easily anyways) to screen.
Say you wanted #product.features[:screen] to show IPS of TFT in the future as well as size, then you would have to have nested hashes or something else that would be really ugly to process.
Perhaps a Features table that contains the features that you want to mention for the products, probably with a type attribute. Maybe "Type: Display, Key: Size, Value: 1920x1080", or "Type: HDD, Key: Capacity, Value: 2GB". You can use the type to create 'families' of keys. You can make your keys anything you want to track, and the value is just a string.
With that Feature list built, you create a joining table/model (assignments?) that tracks which product has which features.
Product (id, non-feature attributes)
has_many assignments
has_many features, through assignments
Feature (id, type, key, value)
has_many assignments
has_many products, through assignments
Assignments (id, product_id, feature_id, timestamps?)
belongs_to product
belongs_to feature
Given that you're linking a product id to a feature id, you can fiddle with your feature value text without breaking anything. Decide that "1920x1080" should be "1920px x 1080px" -- just change the feature record.
I've read so many Rails books/tutorials, but when it comes time to actually make the app, I keep tripping over myself, so I'm trying this little exercise to help me get it better.
I have an app with 3 classes (Link, Url, Visit) that have associations defined between them, such as has_one, belongs_to etc. This allows me to call methods like Link.url
If I were to convert this into an app with a single model, is it possible to create the convenience methods (such as Link.url) even though there are no relationships between models, because there is only one model.
This might not be the 'Rails way' but if you answer this question it'll help me get it more.
I guess another way to ask this is, do the Rails associations only exist because the tab
Thanks
Models exist to represent tables in a database. If you have 3 different conceptual objects, then you need 3 different models. Keeping those objects separate and in different tables/models is essential to good programming in any language. The relations are there to help you understand the correlation of each object to the others.
If you think all of data from each of the models can be represented in one table sensibly, then combine them in to one model with a name that encompasses all of the data. If you choose this option, you'll use columns for that one table which represent each of the pieces of data you need. Those column names come free in the model when you create the migration. A table with a column named "url" on a model named "Hit" could be used like this:
Hit.first.url
I'm developing a rails project where I have one data model with multiple fields that are collection selects. I'd like to create another model to represent all of these collection select fields. So, for instance, my main data model has three collection select fields -- one for county, one for category, and one for classification. I could separate these into three separate data models, but that seems redundant since they all share the same characteristics. They have a type and a value, like a county is a county and it has a value of let's say Sonoma, just as category has a type of category and a value of let's say Winery. If you've ever used Drupal, I'm basically looking for the behavior of the taxonomy functionality.
So you see my dilemma: I need to separate these fields into three separate fields but they have very similar data structures. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
This is a perfect case for single-table inheritance. Your problem is screaming for it.