I have this method which works fine but I'm thinking that it may be improved, either for readability and/or efficience.
def default_something
something =
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_by(id: DEFAULT_SOMETHING_ID)
{
'name' => something.name,
'day' => something.meta_data[:day],
'hour' => something.meta_data[:hour],
}
end
I can "beautify it" by creating some more methods like:
def default_something
something = def A || def B || (etc)
end
def A
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier)
end
def B
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
end
In addition I should say:
find_for_B part only retrieves a value when claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode || claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode = 'ASL'
Is the "beautified" version the way to go?
And/or should I add an if statement regarding
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
to improve efficiency and readability, stating it happens only when "indivcode" = "ASL"?
What else can I do?
Related
So I have a drivers (user table) which has a relationship with the subscriptions table. There are 3 different tiers available: Gold, Silver and a Free tier. What i want to do is group and order by tiers, so I'd have the golds together, silvers together etc in descending order.
What i have now in my controller:
class DriversController < ApplicationController
def index
order_subs = Driver.order_by_subs.all
def gold_drivers
Driver.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx' || driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'}
end
def silver_drivers
Driver.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx' || driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'}
end
def free_drivers
Driver.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions == 'null' || driver.subscriptions == ''}
end
#pagy, #drivers = pagy(
Driver.joins(:profile).select(
'drivers.*',
'(profiles.no_races + profiles.no_poles + profiles.no_podiums + profiles.no_wins) AS score'
).reorder(gold_drivers, silver_drivers, free_drivers, score),
page: params[:page],
items: 16
)
end
end
So my thoughts were I could select the records under a variable i.e gold_drivers and then add them as I would in the reorder section in the #pagy pagination section .reorder(gold_drivers, silver_drivers, free_drivers, score) At the moment when i run the page I get the error undefined method stripe_plan' for nil:NilClass` so i'm guessing it can't find the column. If it's a free user, they won't have a record in the subscription table. Thanks
EDIT: driver model
scope :is_gold, -> { where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'") || where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'") }
scope :is_silver, -> { where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'") || where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'") }
scope :is_null, -> { where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan == ''") || where("drivers.subscriptions.stripe_plan" == null) }
scope :order_by_subs, -> { reorder(:is_gold, :is_silver, :is_null) }
I have to be honest your code is incredibly confusing. It looks like you can order by subs, but I guess you can't, I'm not sure what is working and what isn't looking at your code. I see what you are doing from our previous conversation and this is off. Like I said in my comment, I would focus on understanding the basics here before you dive into some of this stuff. I'm going to fix your method and explain along the way so it hopefully makes some more sense and either works, or shows you a path to getting it to work.
class DriversController < ApplicationController
def index
# because there is no # on this it is a local variable, it will not be available in the view. Wondering also why you didn't just use this for the select below. Also, if you can already order by subs why would you even need to select them, wasn't that the reason for selecting them like this in the first place?
order_subs = Driver.order_by_subs.all
# it is my understanding you want these in the view so we add the # symbol which makes it an instance variable and you access those variables in the view now
#gold_drivers = order_subs.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx' || driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'}
#silver_drivers = order_subs.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx' || driver.subscriptions.stripe_plan == 'price_xxx'}
#free_drivers = order_subs.select { |driver| driver.subscriptions == 'null' || driver.subscriptions == ''}
# Not sure where your local variable 'score' is coming from, do you need to set that first?
#pagy, #drivers = pagy(
Driver.joins(:profile).select(
'drivers.*',
'(profiles.no_races + profiles.no_poles + profiles.no_podiums + profiles.no_wins) AS score'
).reorder(#gold_drivers, #silver_drivers, #free_drivers, score),
page: params[:page],
items: 16
)
end
end
O.k so now you are setting the drivers values as instance variables which can be accessed in your view.
I am trying to reject array items based on multiple conditions.
The code is as follows
def fetch_items
items= line_items.reject(&driving?)
if new_order_history_enabled?
items = items.reject{ |li| li.expenses == 0 }
end
items
end
def driving?
proc { |line_item| LineItemType.new(line_item, segment).drive? }
end
Is there a one liner or a more cleaner way to write this?
Something like
items= line_items.reject { |li| li.driving? && ( new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)}
items= line_items.reject { |li| li.driving? || (new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)}
Since you want both to apply here, I think you should use || instead of &&
That way, you are actually doing what you describe in your method. (and you only iterate once over the array, which is cool :) )
Although, and this is stylistic preference. I would prefer to do:
items = line_items.reject do |li|
li.driving? ||
(new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)
end
since it might be clearer at a glance what we are doing
Personally I don't think a one-liner is always cleaner, especially when it's a long one-liner. The style that (to me) is cleaner, is to write:
def fetch_items
items= line_items.reject(&:driving?)
items= items.reject(&:zero_expenses?) if new_order_history_enabled?
end
def driving?
proc { |line_item| LineItemType.new(line_item, segment).drive? }
end
# in the LineItem class, define the zero_expenses? method:
def zero_expenses?
expenses.zero?
end
I am finding something like below. Constructing a where clause using condition. Is it possible in ruby? or I need to separate it into two where clause?
Post
.where(tag: "A") if condition A
.where(tag: "B") if condition B
.where(user_id: 1)
.order(....)
Actually, my case is like this. Is there any way to handle?
def this_function
#questions = Question.joins(:comment_threads)
.tagged_with(tag_variable, wild: true, any: true) if tag_variable.present?
.where(index_where_clause)
.where("questions.created_at < ?", query_from_date_time)
.order(created_at: :desc).limit(5)
end
def index_where_clause
where_clause = {}
where_clause[:user_detail_id] = current_user_detail.id if params[:type] == "my_question"
where_clause[:comments] = {user_detail_id: current_user_detail.id} if params[:type] == "my_answer"
where_clause[:wine_question_score_id] = params[:wine_question_score_id] if params[:wine_question_score_id].present?
where_clause
end
The methods you're using return relations so you can say things like this:
#questions = Question.joins(:comment_threads)
#questions = #questions.where("questions.created_at < ?", query_from_date_time)
#questions = #questions.tagged_with(tag_variable, wild: true, any: true) if tag_variable.present?
#questions = #questions.where(:user_detail_id => current_user_detail.id) if params[:type] == "my_question"
#questions = #questions.where(:comments => { user_detail_id: current_user_detail.id}) if params[:type] == "my_answer"
#questions = #questions.where(:wine_question_score_id => params[:wine_question_score_id]) if params[:wine_question_score_id].present?
#questions = #questions.order(created_at: :desc).limit(5)
and build the query piece by piece depending on what you have in params.
I'd probably break it down a little more:
def whatever
#questions = Question.joins(:comment_threads)
#questions = #questions.where("questions.created_at < ?", query_from_date_time)
#questions = with_tag(#questions, tag_variable)
#...
#questions = #questions.order(created_at: :desc).limit(5)
end
private
def with_tag(q, tag)
if tag.present?
q.tagged_with(tag, wild: true, any: true)
else
q
end
end
#...
and bury all the noisy bits in little methods to make things cleaner and easier to read. If you're doing this more than once then you could use scopes to hide the noise in the model class and re-use it as needed.
#tap can be helpful for modifying an object in place to apply conditional logic, in this case the object would be your .where conditions:
Post
.where(
{ user_id: 1 }
.tap do |conditions|
conditions[:tag] = 'A' if condition A
conditions[:tag] = 'B' if condition B
end
)
.order(...)
Or, perhaps it's a little cleaner if you create a helper method:
def specific_conditions
{ user_id: 1 }.tap do |conditions|
conditions[:tag] = 'A' if condition A
conditions[:tag] = 'B' if condition B
end
end
Post.where(specific_conditions).order(...)
But as a side note, if there's a case where condition A and condition B can both be true, the second conditions[:tag] = ... line will override the first. If there is not a case where both can be true, you might try to use some kind of collection to look up the proper value for tag.
CONDITION_TAGS = {
a: 'A'.freeze,
b: 'B'.freeze,
}.freeze
def specific_conditions
{ user_id: 1 }
.tap do |conditions|
conditions[:tag] = CONDITION_TAGS[condition_value] if condition_value
end
end
Post.where(specific_conditions).order(...)
#in Question class
scope :with_user_detail, -> (user_detail_id, flag=true) do
where("user_detail_id = ?", user_detail_id) if flag
end
scope :with_user_detail_comments, -> (user_detail_id, flag=true) do
joins(:comment_threads).where("comments.user_detail_id = ?", user_detail_id) if flag
end
scope :with_wine_question_score, -> (wine_question_score_id) do
where("wine_question_score_id = ?", wine_question_score_id) if wine_question_score_id.present?
end
scope :tagged_with_condition, -> (tag_variable, wild, any) do
tagged_with(tag_variable, wild, any) if tag_variable.present?
end
def this_function
my_question_flag = params[:type] == "my_question"
my_answer_flag = params[:type] == "my_answer"
Question.with_user_detail(current_user_detail.id, my_question_flag)
.tagged_with_condition(tag_variable, wild: true, any: true)
.with_user_detail_comments(current_user_detail.id, my_answer_flag)
.with_wine_question_score(params[:wine_question_score_id])
.order(created_at: :desc).limit(5)
end
You can do the following:
condition = {:tag => "A"} if condition A
condition = {:tag => "B"} if condition B
Post
.where(condition)
.where(:user_id => 1)
.order(....)
you have to use scope :
scope :my_scope, -> (variable) { where(some: vatiable) if my_condition }
I need to filter objects in array.
It works with one parameters
#usersc = #usersb.select { |user| user.need_appartment? }
but i would like use more parameters than in SQL/ActiveRecord :
(need_bedrooms_min >= :nb_bedrooms_min) AND (budget_amount BETWEEN :budget_min AND :budget_max) AND ((need_surface_min BETWEEN :surface_min AND :surface_max) OR (need_surface_max BETWEEN :surface_min AND :surface_max))"+req,{nb_bedrooms_min: params[:nb_bedrooms_min], budget_min: params[:budget_min], budget_max: params[:budget_max],surface_min: params[:surface_min], surface_max: params[:surface_max]}).paginate(:page => params[:page])
I dont find the solution... Anyone can help me ?
F.
select does exactly what you need with as many parameters as you might want:
#usersb.select do |user|
user.need_bedrooms_min >= params[:nb_bedrooms_min].to_i &&
(params[:budget_min].to_i..params[:budget_max].to_i).include? user.budget_amount &&
((params[:surface_min].to_i..params[:surface_max].to_i).include? user.need_surface_min ||
(params[:surface_min].to_i..params[:surface_max].to_i).include? user.need_surface_max)
end
Or, more cleanly:
class User
def needs_apartment?(params)
budget_min, budget_max, surface_min, surface_max, nb_bedrooms_min =
%w{budget_min budget_max surface_min surface_max nb_bedrooms_min}.map{|k| params[k.to_sym].to_i}
budget_range = budget_min..budget_max
surface_range = surface_min..surface_max
need_bedrooms_min >= nb_bedrooms_min &&
budget_range.include? budget_amount &&
(surface_range.include?(need_surface_min) || surface_range.include?(need_surface_max))
end
end
#usersb.select{|user| user.needs_apartment?(params)}
I would like to simplify this complicated logic for creating unique Track object.
def self.create_unique(p)
f = Track.find :first, :conditions => ['user_id = ? AND target_id = ? AND target_type = ?', p[:user_id], p[:target_id], p[:target_type]]
x = ((p[:target_type] == 'User') and (p[:user_id] == p[:target_id]))
Track.create(p) if (!f and !x)
end
Here's a rewrite of with a few simple extract methods:
def self.create_unique(attributes)
return if exists_for_user_and_target?(attributes)
return if user_is_target?(attributes)
create(attributes)
end
def self.exists_for_user_and_target?(attributes)
exists?(attributes.slice(:user_id, :target_id, :target_type))
end
def self.user_is_target?(attributes)
attributes[:target_type] == 'User' && attributes[:user_id] == attributes[:target_id]
end
This rewrite shows my preference for small, descriptive methods to help explain intent. I also like using guard clauses in cases like create_unique; the happy path is revealed in the last line (create(attributes)), but the guards clearly describe exceptional cases. I believe my use of exists? in exists_for_user_and_target? could be a good replacement for find :first, though it assumes Rails 3.
You could also consider using uniqueness active model validation instead.
##keys = [:user_id, :target_id, :target_type]
def self.create_unique(p)
return if Track.find :first, :conditions => [
##keys.map{|k| "#{k} = ?"}.join(" and "),
*##keys.map{|k| p[k]}
]
return if p[##keys[0]] == p[##keys[1]]
return if p[##keys[2]] == "User"
Track.create(p)
end