I've got a Rails Pundit Policy scope which I'm trying to figure out.
If I have these 3 models:
User - has many stories
Story - belongs to a user and has many chapters
Chapter - belongs to a story
I want any user to be able to view any published chapters or any chapters which were written by the user (even non-published ones).
Obviously if I am an author who wrote a story, I should be able to view my own stories as well as all my chapters for my stories, even if they are not published. Everyone else though, can only view my published stories and published chapters within those published stories.
I have tried this:
class ChapterPolicy < ApplicationPolicy
class Scope < Scope
def resolve
scope.where(published: true).or(scope.where("story.user.id = ?", #user.id))
end
end
end
Supposedly we need to use JOINS I read, so I have also tried this:
scope.where(published: true).or(scope.joins(:story).where(stories: { user: #user }))
but I get error:
Relation passed to #or must be structurally compatible. Incompatible values: [:joins, :references]
Any ideas how I can write the query to do what I wanted?
You can use Arel expressions to write this:
Chapter.joins(story: :user)
.where(Chapter.arel_table[:published].eq(true))
.where(Story.arel_table[:published].eq(true))
.or(Chapter.joins(story: :user).where(Story.arel_table[:user_id].eq(user.id)))
That expression produces this query:
SELECT "chapters".* FROM "chapters" INNER JOIN "stories" ON "stories"."id" = "chapters"."story_id" INNER JOIN "users" ON "users"."id" = "stories"."user_id" WHERE ("chapters"."published" = 't' AND "stories"."published" = 't' OR "stories"."user_id" = 1)
I think I finally got it:
scope.joins(story: :user).where("(stories.published = ? AND chapters.published = ?) OR stories.user_id = ?", true, true, #user.id)
Was hoping for a more non SQL statement way, but oh well, guess this will do unless someone know's the non-sql way.
Did you have a look at Arel ?
You could have something like this:
chapters = Arel::Table.new(:chapter)
stories = Arel::Table.new(:story)
rel = chapters.joins(stories)
.where(chapters[:published].eq(true)
.where(stories[:published].eq(true))
.or(stories[:user_id].eq(#user.id))
scope.where(rel)
Related
I need to create a live chat app and now I have three models :
ChatRoom
ChatRoomMember
ChatRoomMessage
From this three models, I use includes and references to get the list of chat_rooms for current login user. Here is the code that I have wrote.
#chat_rooms = ChatRoom.includes(:members).references(:members)
#chat_rooms = #chat_rooms.includes(:messages).references(:messages)
#chat_rooms = #chat_rooms.where 'chat_room_members.user_id = ?', #current_user.id
#chat_rooms = #chat_rooms.order 'chat_room_messages.created_at DESC'
#chat_rooms = #chat_rooms.limit(limit).offset(offset)
However, the order didn't work as I expected. What I want is that the chat_rooms are sorted by created_at column from the last message in that room. How can I do this ?
Here is the database structure :
Use association to avoid where 'chat_room_members.user_id = ?', #current_user.id
Here is my suggestion, assuming User has associations looking like:
class User
has_many :chat_room_members
has_many :chat_rooms, through: :chat_room_members
end
# list only rooms with at least on message
#chat_rooms = #current_user.chat_rooms.joins(:messages).order('chat_room_messages.created_at DESC').limit(limit).offset(offset)
# list all rooms even if there is no message attached
#chat_rooms = #current_user.chat_rooms.distinct.left_joins(:messages).order('chat_room_messages.created_at DESC').limit(limit).offset(offset)
Try this:
ChatRoom.includes(:messages).order('chat_room_messages.created_at DESC')
Thanks for everyone has help me to solve this probel. I have my own answer. Here is it.
SELECT chat_rooms.*, (SELECT chat_room_messages.created_at FROM chat_room_messages WHERE chat_room_messages.chat_room_id = chat_rooms.id ORDER BY chat_room_messages.id DESC LIMIT 1) AS last_message_at FROM chat_rooms INNER JOIN chat_room_members ON chat_room_members.chat_room_id = chat_rooms.id WHERE chat_room_members.user_id = #{#current_user.id} ORDER BY last_message_at DESC
I use raw query for solve this problem. Hope this can help anyone who need it !
I want to select one user and add to it associated records such as child for this example.
But only the child with a specific place_id.
This code works, but when the user doesn't have any child entry I got an error.
#user = User.includes(:child).find(params[:id],
:conditions => ["child.place_id = ?", #place_id])
Here is the error:
Couldn't find User with id=19 [WHERE (child.place_id = 0)]
Thanks !
Try where clause, since you are already using brute SQL. This will not produce error and will either fetch or set to nil:
#user = User.includes(:child).
where("users.id=? AND child.place_id = ?",
params[:id],#place_id).first
PS: Is it child.place_id or children.place_id? ActiveRecord tends to pluralize table names.
EDIT:
This only works if there are children. If you want it to work event without children,do this:
#user = User.joins('LEFT JOIN child on child.user_id = users.id').
where('child.place_id = ? AND users.id = ?', #place_id, params[:id]).
select('users.field1, child.field2 as field3')
If you want specific fields, add them in select method above, which is provided as an example.
I want to achieve something that takes exactly 3 seconds on SQL, and I'm struggling with it for hours, I want to load all records and left join if it exists, if not, then don't give me the associated model.
the query I want to create is as follows:
"SELECT * FROM apartments LEFT JOIN comments ON apartments.id = comments.apartment_id AND comments.user_id = ?"
and when I call apartment.comments, it'll give me just the record (can only be one) for the specific user, not all the records for every user.
I tried
Apartment.joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN comments ON comments.apartment_id = apartments.id AND comments.user_id = #{user_id}")
but it doesn't work, as when I call apartments.comments it fires another query which returns all possible comments.
Apartment.includes(:comments).where("comments.user_id = ?", user_id)
doesn't work aswell, because it returns only apartments who has a comment from the specific user.
help is needed!
Maybe you could try this:
#app/models/apartment.rb
Class Apartment < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :comments
scope :user, ->(id) { where("comments.user_id = ?", id }
end
#apartment = Apartment.find(params[:id])
#comments = #apartment.comments.user(user_id)
Need advice, how to write complex query in Ruby.
Query in PHP project:
$get_trustee = db_query("SELECT t.trustee_name,t.secret_key,t.trustee_status,t.created,t.user_id,ui.image from trustees t
left join users u on u.id = t.trustees_id
left join user_info ui on ui.user_id = t.trustees_id
WHERE t.user_id='$user_id' AND trustee_status ='pending'
group by secret_key
ORDER BY t.created DESC")
My guess in Ruby:
get_trustee = Trustee.find_by_sql('SELECT t.trustee_name, t.secret_key, t.trustee_status, t.created, t.user_id, ui.image FROM trustees t
LEFT JOIN users u ON u.id = t.trustees_id
LEFT JOIN user_info ui ON ui.user_id = t.trustees_id
WHERE t.user_id = ? AND
t.trustee_status = ?
GROUP BY secret_key
ORDER BY t.created DESC',
[user_id, 'pending'])
Option 1 (Okay)
Do you mean Ruby with ActiveRecord? Are you using ActiveRecord and/or Rails? #find_by_sql is a method that exists within ActiveRecord. Also it seems like the user table isn't really needed in this query, but maybe you left something out? Either way, I'll included it in my examples. This query would work if you haven't set up your relationships right:
users_trustees = Trustee.
select('trustees.*, ui.image').
joins('LEFT OUTER JOIN users u ON u.id = trustees.trustees_id').
joins('LEFT OUTER JOIN user_info ui ON ui.user_id = t.trustees_id').
where(user_id: user_id, trustee_status: 'pending').
order('t.created DESC')
Also, be aware of a few things with this solution:
I have not found a super elegant way to get the columns from the join tables out of the ActiveRecord objects that get returned. You can access them by users_trustees.each { |u| u['image'] }
This query isn't really THAT complex and ActiveRecord relationships make it much easier to understand and maintain.
I'm assuming you're using a legacy database and that's why your columns are named this way. If I'm wrong and you created these tables for this app, then your life would be much easier (and conventional) with your primary keys being called id and your timestamps being called created_at and updated_at.
Option 2 (Better)
If you set up your ActiveRecord relationships and classes properly, then this query is much easier:
class Trustee < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'trustees_id' # wouldn't be needed if the column was id
has_one :user
has_one :user_info
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :trustee, foreign_key: 'trustees_id' # relationship can also go the other way
end
class UserInfo < ActiveRecord::Base
self.table_name = 'user_info'
belongs_to :trustee
end
Your "query" can now be ActiveRecord goodness if performance isn't paramount. The Ruby convention is readability first, reorganizing code later if stuff starts to scale.
Let's say you want to get a trustee's image:
trustee = Trustee.where(trustees_id: 5).first
if trustee
image = trustee.user_info.image
..
end
Or if you want to get all trustee's images:
Trustee.all.collect { |t| t.user_info.try(:image) } # using a #try in case user_info is nil
Option 3 (Best)
It seems like trustee is just a special-case user of some sort. You can use STI if you don't mind restructuring you tables to simplify even further.
This is probably outside of the scope of this question so I'll just link you to the docs on this: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Base.html see "Single Table Inheritance". Also see the article that they link to from Martin Fowler (http://www.martinfowler.com/eaaCatalog/singleTableInheritance.html)
Resources
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html
Yes, find_by_sql will work, you can try this also:
Trustee.connection.execute('...')
or for generic queries:
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute('...')
In a domain like this:
class User
has_many :posts
has_many :topics, :through => :posts
end
class Post
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :topic
end
class Topic
has_many :posts
end
I can read all the Topic ids through user.topic_ids but I can't see a way to apply filtering conditions to this method, since it returns an Array instead of a ActiveRecord::Relation.
The problem is, given a User and an existing set of Topics, marking the ones for which there is a post by the user. I am currently doing something like this:
def mark_topics_with_post(user, topics)
# only returns the ids of the topics for which this user has a post
topic_ids = user.topic_ids
topics.each {|t| t[:has_post]=topic_ids.include(t.id)}
end
But this loads all the topic ids regardless of the input set. Ideally, I'd like to do something like
def mark_topics_with_post(user, topics)
# only returns the topics where user has a post within the subset of interest
topic_ids = user.topic_ids.where(:id=>topics.map(&:id))
topics.each {|t| t[:has_post]=topic_ids.include(t.id)}
end
But the only thing I can do concretely is
def mark_topics_with_post(user, topics)
# needlessly create Post objects only to unwrap them later
topic_ids = user.posts.where(:topic_id=>topics.map(&:id)).select(:topic_id).map(&:topic_id)
topics.each {|t| t[:has_post]=topic_ids.include(t.id)}
end
Is there a better way?
Is it possible to have something like select_values on a association or scope?
FWIW, I'm on rails 3.0.x, but I'd be curious about 3.1 too.
Why am I doing this?
Basically, I have a result page for a semi-complex search (which happens based on the Topic data only), and I want to mark the results (Topics) as stuff on which the user has interacted (wrote a Post).
So yeah, there is another option which would be doing a join [Topic,Post] so that the results come out as marked or not from the search, but this would destroy my ability to cache the Topic query (the query, even without the join, is more expensive than fetching only the ids for the user)
Notice the approaches outlined above do work, they just feel suboptimal.
I think that your second solution is almost the optimal one (from the point of view of the queries involved), at least with respect to the one you'd like to use.
user.topic_ids generates the query:
SELECT `topics`.id FROM `topics`
INNER JOIN `posts` ON `topics`.`id` = `posts`.`topic_id`
WHERE `posts`.`user_id` = 1
if user.topic_ids.where(:id=>topics.map(&:id)) was possible it would have generated this:
SELECT topics.id FROM `topics`
INNER JOIN `posts` ON `topics`.`id` = `posts`.`topic_id`
WHERE `posts`.`user_id` = 1 AND `topics`.`id` IN (...)
this is exactly the same query that is generated doing: user.topics.select("topics.id").where(:id=>topics.map(&:id))
while user.posts.select(:topic_id).where(:topic_id=>topics.map(&:id)) generates the following query:
SELECT topic_id FROM `posts`
WHERE `posts`.`user_id` = 1 AND `posts`.`topic_id` IN (...)
which one of the two is more efficient depends on the data in the actual tables and indices defined (and which db is used).
If the topic ids list for the user is long and has topics repeated many times, it may make sense to group by topic id at the query level:
user.posts.select(:topic_id).group(:topic_id).where(:topic_id=>topics.map(&:id))
Suppose your Topic model has a column named id you can do something like this
Topic.select(:id).join(:posts).where("posts.user_id = ?", user_id)
This will run only one query against your database and will give you all the topics ids that have posts for a given user_id