Rails Complex Model Association, Shared Document Between Users and Teams - ruby-on-rails

I have a complex model association in mind, and was wondering how I could accomplish it. This is what i want to accomplish.
I have a User and a Document model
A User can create documents. He is now the document admin.
He can add other users to his document, and give them permissions such as Editor, Viewer, Admin
He can also make a team, a group of users, and add multiple teams to his document. Each user on a team that the User has added to his document will also have permissions. A user can belong to many teams.
I am a little bit confused about the associations I will have to setup. This is the code I have so far, which has not incorporated the team aspect:
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
has_many :documents, through: :participations
end
class Document < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
has_many :users, through: :participations
end
class Participation < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :document
enum role: [ :admin, :editor, :viewer ]
end

I would recommend introducing a Team and TeamMembership models in a similary way to existing models. Also change the belongs_to association on Participation from user to a polymorphic participant.
class Team < ApplicationRecord
has_many :team_memberships
has_many :users, through: :team_memberships
has_many :participations, as: :participant
end
class TeamMembership < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :team
belongs_to :user
end
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :team_memberships
has_many :teams, through: :team_memberships
has_many :participations, as: :participant
end
class Participation < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :participant, polymorphic: true
belongs_to :document
enum role: [ :admin, :editor, :viewer ]
end
class Document < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
# if desired create a users method to conveniently get a list of users with access to the document
def users
#users ||= participations.flat_map do |participation|
case participation.partipant
when User
[participation.participant]
when Team
participation.participant.users
end
end
end
end
I would only add has_many :through associations as you discover a benefit/need to having them. That will reduce complexity of maintaining them unless you have specific use case for them. In the case of User having a teams association, it's pretty obvious that you'll be likely to want to get the teams that the user is a part of and since there's no specific information in the TeamMembership object that you are likely to need in that determination, it's a good has_many :through to have.
EDIT: Added Document model.

Since you already have a participation model, you can use that as the join model between users and teams. Since a user can belong to multiple teams, and a document can have multiple teams, you can use a has_many through relationship between teams and documents. We'll call it the DocumentTeam model.
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
has_many :documents, through: :participations
has_many :teams, through: :participations
end
class Participation < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :document
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :team, optional: true
enum role: [ :admin, :editor, :viewer ]
end
class Team < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
has_many :users, through: :participations
has_many :document_teams
has_many :document, through: :document_teams
end
class Document < ApplicationRecord
has_many :participations
has_many :users, through: :participations
has_many :document_teams
has_many :teams, through: :document_teams
end
class DocumentTeam < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :document
belongs_to :team
end

Related

How to differentiate similar has_many :through associations in Rails?

I'll start off with my models:
class Project < ApplicationRecord
has_many :permissions
has_many :wallets, through: :permissions
has_many :follows
has_many :wallets, through: :follows
end
class Permission < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :project
belongs_to :wallet
end
class Follow < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :project
belongs_to :wallet
end
class Wallet < ApplicationRecord
has_many :permissions
has_many :projects, through: :permissions
has_many :follows
has_many :projects, through: :follows
end
As you can see, Permission and Follow are both through associations for Projects and Wallets.
They serve different purposes (Permission gives Wallets access to manage Projects while Follow lets Wallets "follow" projects for updates).
So how can I differentiate them? For example, if I do Wallet.find(1).projects, it defaults to using the "Follow" model...though in some scenarios I'd want it to actually use the "Permission" model.
Believe you'd find it will default to the has_many :projects that is defined last.
Need to give the associations different names, which will require something like ...
class Wallet < ApplicationRecord
has_many :permissions
has_many :projects, through: :permissions
has_many :follows
has_many :follow_projects, through: :follows, source: :project
end

how can create relation with has many through in rails

I have 3 model User Project Bug. I want to create many to many relation with through. I create the relation in model i don't know it is correct or not, user have user type column which is enum type user type contain developer, manager , QA
user.user_type.manager belong to many project it has one to many relation
user.user_type.developer has many project and many project belong to developer. it has many to many realtion
project has many bugs and bugs belong to project
developer has many bugs and many bugs belong to developer
bug model
class Bug < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :project
has_many :developers, -> { where user_type: :Developer }, class_name: 'User', through: :project, source: :bugs
end
project model
class Project < ApplicationRecord
has_many :bugs, dependent: :delete_all
has_many :developers, -> { where user_type: :Developer }, class_name: 'User', through: :users, source: :project
has_many :users //it belong to manager_id
end
user model
class User < ApplicationRecord
enum user_type: %i[Manager Developer QA]
has_many :projects
has_many :bugs
end
developer_bug model
class DevelopersBug < ApplicationRecord
has_many :bugs
has_many :users
end
project_developer model
class ProjectsDeveloper < ApplicationRecord
has_many :projects
has_many :users
end
This
has_many :developers, -> { where user_type: :Developer },
class_name: 'User',
through: :users,
source: :project
is not what you think it is. It means something on the line of:
I already have an association 'users'. The users have an association 'project'.
Please configure an association that makes both JOINs and gives me the list of projects associated to the associated users.
This association will be named "developers" and be of objects of class "User".
You can see how these instructions are inconsistent. This
has_many :projects, through: :users, source: :project
will define a list of associated projects, by jumping over users.
On the other side, this:
has_many :developers, -> { where user_type: :Developer }, class_name: 'User'
will define a direct has-many association with a subset of all the users.
Given your description, your data model seems wrong, maybe this will be better:
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :managed_projects, inverse_of: :manager, class_name: 'Project'
has_and_belongs_to_many :projects
has_many :bugs
end
class Project < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :manager, class_name: 'User', inverse_of: :managed_projects
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
has_many :bugs
end
class Bug < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :project
end
Your schema should include the three tables, and an additional many-to-many join table projects_users that holds foreign keys to both users and projects.
As rewritten has already pointed in his excellent answer out your data model is flawed. What you want instead is a join table which joins the users and projects:
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :project_roles
has_many :projects, through: :project_roles
end
class ProjectRole < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :project
end
class Project < ApplicationRecord
has_many :users
has_many :projects, through: :project_roles
end
If you then want to give the user specific roles in a project you would add the enum to the join table and this is where it starts to get hairy so bear with me here:
class ProjectRole < ApplicationRecord
enum roles: [:manager, :developer, :qa]
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :project
end
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :project_roles
has_many :projects, through: :project_roles
has_many :project_roles_as_manager,
-> { manager }, # short for `where(role: :manager)`
class_name: 'ProjectRole'
has_many :projects_as_manager,
class_name: 'Project',
through: :project_roles_as_manager,
source: :project
has_many :project_roles_as_developer,
-> { developer },
class_name: 'ProjectRole'
has_many :projects_as_developer,
class_name: 'Project',
through: :project_roles_as_developer,
source: :project
# ...
end
This defines associations with a default scope and then joins through that association. You would then do the same thing on the other end of the assocation:
class Project < ApplicationRecord
has_many :users
has_many :projects, through: :project_roles
has_many :manager_project_roles,
-> { manager },
class_name: 'ProjectRole'
has_many :managers,
through: :manager_project_roles,
source: :user
# ...
end
Of course this is a lot of duplication which you can cut by looping over ProjectRoles.roles.keys and defining the assocations dynamically.
This is a very flexible way of modeling it which makes as few assumptions about the domain as possible. For example it allows multiple managers for a project and it allows users to have different roles in different projects.
If you want to model "bugs" as you would typically would with issues in a tracker you would create one table for the bug and a join table for the assignment:
class Bug < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :project
has_many :bug_assignments
has_many :users, through: :bug_assignments
end
class BugAssignment < ApplicationRecord
has_one :project, through: :bug
belongs_to :bug
belongs_to :user
end
class User < ApplicationRecord
# ...
has_many :bug_assignments
has_many :bugs
end

Association between 3 models

I would like a user be able to create a course(so it should belong to one user) and also be able to join another course that it haven't created by him.What is the proper associations between the course and the user ? I want to make the following model associations:
Class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :courses
has_many :comments ,through: :courses
end
Class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :users #here i am not sure
has_many :comments
end
Class Comment < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :courses
end
I think what you should be able to do something like:
Class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :courses
has_many :course_users
has_many :subscribed_courses, through: :course_users, source: :course # I think you should be able to do foreign_key: :course_id, class_name: 'Course'
has_many :comments ,through: :courses
end
Class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
has_many :course_users
has_many :participants, through: :course_users, source: :user # I think you should be able to do foreign_key: :user_id, class_name: 'User'
has_many :comments
end
Class Comment < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :courses
end
#course_users is a join table for courses and users
class CourseUser < ActiveRecord::Base
# inside here you could have several other connections e.g grade of a user in a course within this join model
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :course
end
If I'm understanding what you're saying - you need to have a third model - you can call it enrollment
For Course you would use belongs_to :user if each course is created as a user.
Your Enrollment model with have two HABTAM
Class Enrollment < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
has_and_belongs_to_many :courses
end
(An Aside, if a course is going to be offered more than once, you'll have to add an additional model for each instance of the course and the enrollment will belong to that model, and not courses)

Active Record Associations: has_and_belongs_to_many, has_many :through or polymorphic association?

The Ruby on Rails app I am working on allows users to create and share agendas with other users.
In addition, we must be able to:
Display a list of agendas for each user, on his profile
Display a list of users associated with an agenda, on the agenda's page
When sharing an agenda with another user, define a role for this user, and display the role of this user on the list mentioned right above
I was going to go with a has_and_belongs_to_many association between the user and the agenda models, like that:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :agendas
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
end
But then I wondered whether this would let me get and display the #user.agenda.user.role list of roles on the given agenda page of a given user.
And I thought I should probably go with a has_many :through association instead, such as:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles
has_many :agendas, through: :roles
end
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles
has_many :users, through: :roles
end
And although I was pretty comfortable about the idea of a user having several roles (one for each agenda), I am not sure about the idea of an agenda having several roles (one for each user?).
Finally, to add to the confusion, I read about the polymorphic association and thought it could also be a viable solution, if done this way for instance:
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :definition, polymorphic: true
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles, as: :definition
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles, as: :definition
end
Does any of the above solutions sound right for the situation?
UPDATE: Doing some research, I stumbled upon this article (from 2012) explaining that has_many :through was a "smarter" choice than has_and_belongs_to_many. In my case, I am still not sure about the fact that an agenda would have many roles.
UPDATE 2: As suggested in the comments by #engineersmnkyn, a way of solving this would be to go with two join tables. I tried to implement the following code:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :agendas, through: :jointable
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
end
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
end
class Jointable < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
has_many :agendaroles through :jointable2
end
class Jointable2 < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :roles
belongs_to :useragenda
end
I am not sure about the syntax though. Am I on the right track? And how should I define the Agenda and the Role models?
UPDATE 3: What if I went with something like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles
has_many :agendas, through: :roles
end
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :roles
has_many :users, through: :roles
end
and then, in the migration file, go with something like:
class CreateRoles < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :roles do |t|
t.belongs_to :user, index: true
t.belongs_to :agenda, index: true
t.string :privilege
t.timestamps
end
end
end
Would I be able to call #user.agenda.privilege to get the privilege ("role" of creator, editor or viewer) of a given user for a given agenda?
Conversely, would I be able to call #agenda.user.privilege ?
Okay I will preface by saying I have not tested this but I think one of these 2 choices should work well for you.
Also if these join tables will never need functionality besides a relationship then has_and_belongs_to_many would be fine and more concise.
Basic Rails rule of thumb:
If you need to work with the relationship model as its own entity, use has_many :through. Use has_and_belongs_to_many when working with legacy schemas or when you never work directly with the relationship itself.
First using your example (http://repl.it/tNS):
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agendas
has_many :agendas, through: :user_agendas
has_many :user_agenda_roles, through: :user_agendas
has_many :roles, through: :user_agenda_roles
def agenda_roles(agenda)
roles.where(user_agenda_roles:{agenda:agenda})
end
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agendas
has_many :users, through: :user_agendas
has_many :user_agenda_roles, through: :user_agendas
has_many :roles, through: :user_agenda_roles
def user_roles(user)
roles.where(user_agenda_roles:{user: user})
end
end
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agenda_roles
end
class UserAgenda < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
has_many :user_agenda_roles
has_many :roles, through: :user_agenda_roles
end
class UserAgendaRoles < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :role
belongs_to :user_agenda
end
This uses a join table to hold the relationship of User <=> Agenda and then a table to join UserAgenda => Role.
The Second Option is to use a join table to hold the relationship of User <=> Agenda and another join table to handle the relationship of User <=> Agenda <=> Role. This option will take a bit more set up from a CRUD standpoint for things like validating if the user is a user for that Agenda but allows a little flexibility.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agendas
has_many :agendas, through: :user_agendas
has_many :user_agenda_roles
has_many :roles, through: :user_agenda_roles
def agenda_roles(agenda)
roles.where(user_agenda_roles:{agenda: agenda})
end
end
class Agenda < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agendas
has_many :users, through: :user_agendas
has_many :user_agenda_roles
has_many :roles, through: :user_agenda_roles
def user_roles(user)
roles.where(user_agenda_roles:{user: user})
end
end
class Role < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_agenda_roles
end
class UserAgenda < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
end
class UserAgendaRoles < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :role
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :agenda
end
I know this is a long answer but I wanted to show you more than 1 way to solve the problem in this case. Hope it helps

Rails: ignoring duplicates in an nested association

I have models User, Team, Document. There's a many-to-many relationship between Users and Teams, and a many-to-many relationship between Teams and Documents, using join tables called TeamMembership and TeamDocument respectively.
The relationships in my models look like this:
class Document < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :team_documents, dependent: :destroy
has_many :teams, through: :team_documents
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :team_memberships, dependent: :destroy, foreign_key: :member_id
has_many :teams, through: :team_memberships
has_many :documents, through: :teams
end
class TeamDocument < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :team
belongs_to :document
end
class TeamMembership < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :team
belongs_to :member, class_name: "User"
end
class Team < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :team_documents, dependent: :destroy
has_many :documents, through: :team_documents
has_many :team_memberships, dependent: :destroy
has_many :members, through: :team_memberships
end
The idea is that users can belong to many teams, a document can be associated with many teams, and users will only have access to documents that "belong" to at least one team that the user is a member of.
Here's the question: I can use User#documents to retrieve a list of all the documents that this user is allowed to view. But this will return duplicates if a document is viewable by more than one team which the user is a member of. How can I avoid this?
I know I can remove the duplicates after the fact with #user.documents.uniq, but as I will never want to include the duplicates in any case, is there a way I can just make #documents not include duplicates every time?
I don't have nested has_many :through like yours to test it, but I suspect using uniq option on your user association would help :
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :documents, through: :teams, uniq: true
end
You can add a default_scope on Document model:
class Document < ActiveRecord::Base
default_scope group: { documents: :id }

Resources