I have the following example ruby code:
def example_method(obj)
ExampleClass.new(color1: #theme.try(obj['color1'].to_sym))
end
Which should pass either the obj['color1'] as a symbol or nil to the class.
However if color1 is not passed I get the error: NoMethodError: undefined method 'to_sym' for nil:NilClass.
Shouldn't the try method be handling the exception?
Update: based on comments... I solved it by doing a ternary:
ExampleClass.new(color1: obj['color1'].present? ? #brand_theme.try(obj['color1'].try(:to_sym)) : nil)
You could write a helper method:
def theme_color(name)
return unless name
return unless #theme.respond_to?(name)
#theme.public_send(name)
end
def example_method(obj)
ExampleClass.new(color1: theme_color(obj['color1']))
end
theme_color returns nil if the argument is nil, i.e. obj['color1']. It also returns nil if theme does not respond to the given method. Otherwise, it invokes the method specified by name.
Note that respond_to? and public_send accept either a string or a symbol, so no to_sym is needed.
You could also define the helper method as an instance method of your #theme class:
class Theme
def color(name)
return unless name
return unless respond_to?(name)
public_send(name)
end
def red
'FF0000'
end
end
#theme = Theme.new
#theme.red #=> "FF0000"
#theme.color(:red) #=> "FF0000"
#theme.color('red') #=> "FF0000"
#theme.color('green') #=> nil
#theme.color(nil) #=> nil
And invoke it via:
def example_method(obj)
ExampleClass.new(color1: #theme.color(obj['color1']))
end
Keep in mind that these approaches (using public_send or try) allow you to invoke arbitrary methods on your #theme object. It might be safer to keep the colors in a hash.
From comments:
In this example obj['color1'] would be nil. So we'd be passing nil to the try.
Yes, that's an error. You can't call a method with no name. Technically, you could avoid the error by doing .try(obj['color'].to_s), but it's super-wrong.
I would check for presence explicitly and bail early if it's not there.
def example_method(obj)
return unless obj['color1'].present?
ExampleClass.new(color1: #theme.try(obj['color1']))
end
The try is called on the #theme object. The nil error is thrown because obj['color1'] returns nil and then to_sym is called on nil.
You'd have to alter the code to
ExampleClass.new(color1: #theme.try(obj['color1'].try(:to_sym) || ''))
to catch that.
And then you would have to prettify the code.
How the prettification works will depend on the use case, so I can only offer some general pointer. One way would be to have a default value to avoid having to deal with the null object
Instead of passing around nil, one simply returns a default value:
color_key = obj.fetch('color') { 'default_color' }.to_sym
ExampleClass.new(color1: #theme.send(color_key)))
This makes use of the fetch method which enables returning a default value. That way you will always have a value defined.
Related
Is there a way to check if particular method signature is present in Ruby?
For example I want to call
thing.make(env: ##__ENV__, apiKey: "myKey")
if I do this check
if thing.respond_to? 'make'
I can end up with the error
ArgumentError: unknown keyword: :apiKey
Is there a way to check that there is the particular make(env:,apiKey:) method and not just make with any arguments
Simplest thing to do is try it and rescue the ArgumentError.
begin
thing.make(env: ##__ENV__, apiKey: "myKey")
rescue ArgumentError => e
...guess not...
end
You can also introspect the parameters of the Method object. This returns an Array of Arrays like [[:key, :env], [:key, :apiKey]] . You're looking for :key if its optional, :keyreq if it's required.
params = thing.method(:make).parameters
p [:env,:apiKey].all? { |arg|
params.include?([:key,arg]) || params.include?([:keyreq, arg])
}
If you have to do this as part of application code, you may want to reconsider your design.
I frequently find myself writing Ruby code where I check for the presence of a value and subsequently do something with that value if it is present. E.g.
if some_object.some_attribute.present?
call_something(some_object.some_attribute)
end
I think it would be cool, if it could be written as
some_object.some_attribute.presence { |val| call_something(val) }
=> the return value of call_something
Anyone know if there's such a feature in Ruby or though activesupport?
I opened a pull request for this feature.
You can use a combination of presence and try:
If try is called without arguments it yields the receiver to a given block unless it is nil:
'foo'.presence.try(&:upcase)
#=> "FOO"
' '.presence.try(&:upcase)
#=> nil
nil.presence.try(&:upcase)
#=> nil
You could try
do_thing(object.attribute) if object.attribute
This is usually fine, unless the attribute is a boolean. In which case it will not call if the value is false.
If your attribute can be false, use .nil? instead.
do_thing(object.attribute) unless object.attribute.nil?
Though there is no such functionality out of the box, one could do:
some_object.some_attribute.tap do |attr|
attr.present? && call_smth(attr)
end
On the other hand, Rails provides so many monkeypatches, that one could append one to this circus:
class Object
def presense_with_rails
raise 'Block required' unless block_given?
yield self if self.present? # requires rails
end
def presense_without_rails
raise 'Block required' unless block_given?
skip = case self
when NilClass, FalseClass then true
when String, Array then empty?
else false
end
yield self unless skip
end
end
I'm working on a method that will allow me to add in a "word" and its "definition", into a hash.
Here's what I have:
class Dictionary
def entries
#entries ||= {}
end
def add word, definition = nil
entries[word] = definition
"#{entries}"
end
end
Note: I want the definition parameter to be optional, hence my initialization to nil. However, for some reason that is showing up in my output.
Example: Passing in "fish" and "aquatic animal":
My output: {{"fish"=>"aquatic animal"}=>nil}
Desired output: {"fish"=>"aquatic animal"}
It seems like the problem is that it's putting both values that I pass to the method into the first key in the hash, and is putting that "nil" value into that key's value. Where am I making an error?
Edit: Adding the relevant RSpec block that is doing the method call so that I can better understand exactly how RSpec is making this call:
describe Dictionary do
before do
#d = Dictionary.new
end
it 'is empty when created' do
#d.entries.should == {}
end
it 'can add whole entries with keyword and definition' do
#d.add('fish' => 'aquatic animal')
#d.entries.should == {'fish' => 'aquatic animal'}
#d.keywords.should == ['fish']
end
Thanks!
If you want to optionally accept a hash entry...
def add word, definition = nil
if word.class == Hash
entries.merge!(word)
else
entries[word] = definition
end
"#{entries}"
end
You don't want to do
#d.add('fish' => 'aquatic animal')
You want to do...
#d.add('fish', 'aquatic animal')
As it is, you're passing a hash as the first argument, second argument is empty.
Your RSpec is wrong.
Change #d.add('fish' => 'aquatic animal') to #d.add('fish', 'aquatic animal')
Your #add method is accepting 2 parameters, with one being optional. With your current code, you're passing in a single hash 'fish' => 'aquatic animal'. Therefor setting word to the hash, and def to nil.
token = params[:token]
email = params[:email]
phone_number = params[:phone_number]
iso_code = params[:iso_code]
if token.nil? or email.nil? or phone_number.nil? or iso_code.nil?
raise InvalidParameterException
end
token.strip!
email.strip!
phone_number.strip!
iso_code.strip!
#use the variables
There are many this code in my rails project.
How do you generalization this pattern in Ruby on Rails?
Is it possible with reflection and meta programming?
unless [:token, :email, :phone_number, :iso_code].-(params.keys).empty?
raise InvalidParameterException
end
params.each{|_, v| v.strip!}
Then, just use it like params[:token] each time. Maybe you can use a shorter variable name for params like p.
I don't think that metaprogramming or patterns are necessary in this case, just common sense:
[:token, :email, :phone_number, :iso_code].each do |k|
raise InvalidParameterException if params[k].nil?
params[k] = params[k].strip
end
I've never understood the popularity of this anti-pattern:
par_1 = params[:par_1]
...
par_n = params[:par_n]
Why not use the params[:par_x] instead? It's usually more convenient to work with params variables grouped in a hash than have them stored into bunch of local variables.
You can define the method below :
def verify_presence_define_var_and_strip(params, symbol_list)
symbol_list.each do |s|
raise InvalidParameterException if params[s].nil?
define_method s, params[s].strip
end
end
With this method, your code could be replace by :
verify_presence_define_var_and_strip(params, [:token, :email, :phone_number, :iso_code])
Notice that it will define method and not just set a local variable but you should have the same result if you do not already have a method with this name in your class.
You may prefer to use the instance_variable_set method but you will have to preceed the variable name by an #.
[UPDATE]
If you really want to define local variable and not method / instance variable, I do not know other solution than using eval :
eval "#{s} = #{params[:s].strip}"
But as you will find if you search about eval, it is considered as bad practice, moreover in this case where you will evaluate values from URL / POST parameters !
Create a helper method that access the params hash and iterates through the elements and checks for nil and throws the exception itself or returns a value to the calling method that could throw the exception.
You can iterate any hash like so,
hash.each do |key,value|
#example nil check
if value.nil?
#do what you want
end
end
If you want to raise on nil in your hash of parameters you could do
raise InvalidParameterException if params.values.include? nil
If you only want to raise on some specific parameters you would have first to pick the values associated to those keys:
required_keys = [:key1, :key2, :key3]
raise invalidParameterException if required_keys.map{|k| params[k]}.include? nil
EDIT: Cannot answer because of lack of points but one of the answer does not work I believe:
[:some_key] - {some_key: nil}.keys # => []
If the parameter hash contains one key initialized with value nil (as a result of a failed parse or invalid user input), Array subtraction does not work.
When I assign in my controller
#my_hash = { :my_key => :my_value }
and test that controller by doing
get 'index'
assigns(:my_hash).should == { :my_key => :my_value }
then I get the following error message:
expected: {:my_key=>:my_value},
got: {"my_key"=>:my_value} (using ==)
Why does this automatic symbol to string conversion happen? Why does it affect the key of the hash?
It may end up as a HashWithIndifferentAccess if Rails somehow gets ahold of it, and that uses string keys internally. You might want to verify the class is the same:
assert_equal Hash, assigns(:my_hash).class
Parameters are always processed as the indifferent access kind of hash so you can retrieve using either string or symbol. If you're assigning this to your params hash on the get or post call, or you might be getting converted.
Another thing you can do is freeze it and see if anyone attempts to modify it because that should throw an exception:
#my_hash = { :my_key => :my_value }.freeze
You might try calling "stringify_keys":
assigns(:my_hash).should == { :my_key => :my_value }.stringify_keys
AHA! This is happening not because of Rails, per se, but because of Rspec.
I had the same problem testing the value of a Hashie::Mash in a controller spec (but it applies to anything that quacks like a Hash)
Specifically, in a controller spec, when you call assigns to access the instance variables set in the controller action, it's not returning exactly the instance variable you set, but rather, a copy of the variable that Rspec stores as a member of a HashWithIndifferentAccess (containing all the assigned instance variables). Unfortunately, when you stick a Hash (or anything that inherits from Hash) into a HashWithIndifferentAccess, it is automatically converted to an instance of that same, oh-so-convenient but not-quite-accurate class :)
The easiest work-around is to avoid the conversion by accessing the variable directly, before it's converted "for your convenience", using: controller.view_assigns['variable_name'] (note: the key here must be a string, not a symbol)
So the test in the original post should pass if it were changed to:
get 'index'
controller.view_assigns['my_hash'].should == { :my_key => :my_value }
(of course, .should is no longer supported in new versions of RSpec, but just for comparison I kept it the same)
See this article for further explanation:
http://ryanogles.by/rails/hashie/rspec/testing/2012/12/26/rails-controller-specs-dont-always-play-nice-with-hashie.html
I know this is old, but if you are upgrading from Rails-3 to 4, your controller tests may still have places where Hash with symbol keys was used but compared with the stringified version, just to prevent the wrong expectation.
Rails-4 has fixed this issue: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/5082 .
I suggest updating your tests to have expectations against the actual keys.
In Rails-3 the assigns method converts your #my_hash to HashWithIndifferentAccess that stringifies all the keys -
def assigns(key = nil)
assigns = #controller.view_assigns.with_indifferent_access
key.nil? ? assigns : assigns[key]
end
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/3-2-stable/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/test_process.rb#L7-L10
Rails-4 updated it to return the original keys -
def assigns(key = nil)
assigns = {}.with_indifferent_access
#controller.view_assigns.each { |k, v| assigns.regular_writer(k, v) }
key.nil? ? assigns : assigns[key]
end
https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/4-0-stable/actionpack/lib/action_dispatch/testing/test_process.rb#L7-L11
You can also pass your Hash object to the initializer of HashWithIndifferentAccess.
You can use HashWithIndifferentAccess.new as Hash init:
Thor::CoreExt::HashWithIndifferentAccess.new( to: 'mail#somehost.com', from: 'from#host.com')