I use jsonapi-resources gem in my Rails app. One of my resources is using pagination. There are cases when I want to disable the pagination and make sure that user will get back all the results.
I tried custom implementation with some custom filter, but failed.
I tried passing "weird" values to paginator, but that did not help (examples for paged paginator):
/api/v1/bars?page[size]=-1 - value not allowed
/api/v1/bars?page[size]=0 - value not allowed
/api/v1/bars?page[size]=999999 - sure, this might work, but it is 100%
i got exactly the same problem today and found this unanswered question.
Below is how I dealt with the problem.
class CustomPaginator < PagedPaginator
attr_reader :limit, :offset, :disable_pagination
def initialize(params)
#disable_pagination = params.nil?
super
end
def apply(relation, _order_options)
disable_pagination ? relation : super
end
end
and in the resources I wanted to use the CustomPaginator I just added paginator :custom like below:
class UserResource < JSONAPI::Resource
paginator :custom
....user implementation
end
now whenever i want to use the paginator i need to explicitly use paginations params when I do the request to the server and when I don't use them I will get full unpaginated response.
The class implementation is not perfect (duh!) but it's just to show you the general concept
Related
Frustrating, I can't find an eligible solution for my problem.
In my Rails 4 app, I want to give my users the possibility to add their own custom post types to their sites. Like:
www.example.com/houses/address-1
www.example2.com/sports/baseball
Both would work, but only for the linked sites. Sports and houses would be the (RESTful) post types, taken from the db, added by users.
I have been struggling to find a elegant solution to accomplish this. I found http://codeconnoisseur.org/ramblings/creating-dynamic-routes-at-runtime-in-rails-4 but that feels kinda hacky and I'm not sure if reloading the routes works in production, I'm getting signals that it won't.
I'd say I have to use routes constraints http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#advanced-constraints but I don't have a clue how to approach this.
To be clear, I have no problem with the site setting stuff, the multi tenancy part of my app is fully functional (set in Middleware, so the current site is callable in the routes.rb file). My issue is with the (relative) routes, and how they could be dynamically set with db records.
Any pointers much appreciated.
I think route constraints don't work for you because your domain is a variable here. Instead, you should be examining the request object.
In your ApplicationController, you could define a method that would be called before any action, like so:
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
before_action :identify_site
def identify_site
#site = Site.where(:domain => request.host).first
end
end
As you scale, you could use Redis for your domains so you're not making an expensive SQL call on each request.
Then you can just add the #site as a parameter to whatever call you're making. I'm assuming you're doing some sort of "Post" thing, so I'll write some boilerplate code:
class PostController < ApplicationController
def show
#post = Post.where(:site => #site, :type => params[:type], :id => params[:id])
end
end
Just write your routes like any other regular resource.
I have a little bit of a complex model and want to get the full functionality capable with my limited understanding of rails.
I have a section, a header (which uses acts_as_tree), and an item.
I use json to bring sets of data in. This has worked very well. I would like to be able to bring attributes in for whole sets of data such as 'is_shippable'. I would like to be able to specify anywhere in the tree the is_shippable value and set to true. Also, I would like to be able to override at the header or item level to set it to false.
I have decided that it makes sense to have is_shippable as an attribute on the section, header, and item and try to use a before_create callback to determine whether it should be is_shippable.
For example:
section
header -acts_as_tree
item - is_shippable
sample json:
{
"name":"sample section",
"is_shippable": true,
"headers_attributes":[
{
"name":"sample_section"
"items_attributes":[{
"name":"sample item",
"is_shippable":false,
}
]
}
]
}
in header.rb
before_save :default_values
private
def default_values
self.is_shippable ||=self.section.is_shippable
# need to be able to set header to is_shippable=false if specified explicitly at that level
end
in item.rb
before_save :default_values
private
def default_values
# if not set, default to 0
self.is_shippable ||= 0
self.is_shippable=1 if self.header.is_shippable==true
# need to be able to set item to is_shippable=false if specified explicitly at that level
end
Is there a better way to do this than I am doing? How would I execute in if statements checking if is_shippable is set to false if it has been set to true higher in the hierarchy?
EDIT - also there are more features that is_shippable like is_fragile, is_custom_size etc...
I would be more inclined to use a before_filter in the controller to modify the nested item params.
something like:
before_filter :set_is_shippable, :only => [:update, :create]
def set_is_shippable
is_shippable = params[:section][:is_shippable]
params[:section][:items_attributes].each_with_index do |item, index|
unless item[:is_shippable]
params[:section][:items_attributes][index][:is_shippable] = is_shippable
end
end
end
I highly recommend the ancestry gem. It is has many more tree traversal methods, and also optimizes the number of queries to the database.
If I understand your dilemma correctly, ancestry would allow you to do something such as:
#section.descendants.all?(&:is_shippable)
In any case, ancestry is much more expressive and will certainly give you greater flexibility. The github wiki linked below for the gem is the best I've ever seen. Very well organized, perhaps perusing it will give you some more ideas.
https://github.com/stefankroes/ancestry
http://railscasts.com/episodes/262-trees-with-ancestry
This is probably one of the things that all new users find out about Rails sooner or later. I just realized that rails is updating all fields with the serialize keyword, without checking if anything really changed inside. In a way that is the sensible thing to do for the generic framework.
But is there a way to override this behavior? If I can keep track of whether the values in a serialized fields have changed or not, is there a way to prevent it from being pushed in the update statement? I tried using "update_attributes" and limiting the hash to the fields of interest, but rails still updates all the serialized fields.
Suggestions?
Here is a similar solution for Rails 3.1.3.
From: https://sites.google.com/site/wangsnotes/ruby/ror/z00---topics/fail-to-partial-update-with-serialized-data
Put the following code in config/initializers/
ActiveRecord::Base.class_eval do
class_attribute :no_serialize_update
self.no_serialize_update = false
end
ActiveRecord::AttributeMethods::Dirty.class_eval do
def update(*)
if partial_updates?
if self.no_serialize_update
super(changed)
else
super(changed | (attributes.keys & self.class.serialized_attributes.keys))
end
else
super
end
end
end
Yes, that was bugging me too. This is what I did for Rails 2.3.14 (or lower):
# config/initializers/nopupdateserialize.rb
module ActiveRecord
class Base
class_attribute :no_serialize_update
self.no_serialize_update = false
end
end
module ActiveRecord2
module Dirty
def self.included(receiver)
receiver.alias_method_chain :update, :dirty2
end
private
def update_with_dirty2
if partial_updates?
if self.no_serialize_update
update_without_dirty(changed)
else
update_without_dirty(changed | (attributes.keys & self.class.serialized_attributes.keys))
end
else
update_without_dirty
end
end
end
end
ActiveRecord::Base.send :include, ActiveRecord2::Dirty
Then in your controller use:
model_item.no_serialize_update = true
model_item.update_attributes(params[:model_item])
model_item.increment!(:hits)
model_item.update_attribute(:nonserializedfield => "update me")
etc.
Or define it in your model if you do not expect any changes to the serialized field once created (but update_attribute(:serialized_field => "update me" still works!)
class Model < ActiveRecord::Base
serialize :serialized_field
def no_serialize_update
true
end
end
I ran into this problem today and ended up hacking my own serializer together with a getter and setter. First I renamed the field to #{column}_raw and then used the following code in the model (for the media attribute in my case).
require 'json'
...
def media=(media)
self.media_raw = JSON.dump(media)
end
def media
JSON.parse(media_raw) if media_raw.present?
end
Now partial updates work great for me, and the field is only updated when the data is actually changed.
The problem with Joris' answer is that it hooks into the alias_method_chain chain, disabling all the chains done after (like update_with_callbacks which accounts for the problems of triggers not being called). I'll try to make a diagram to make it easier to understand.
You may start with a chain like this
update -> update_with_foo -> update_with_bar -> update_with_baz
Notice that update_without_foo points to update_with_bar and update_without_bar to update_with_baz
Since you can't directly modify update_with_bar per the inner workings of alias_method_chain you might try to hook into the chain by adding a new link (bar2) and calling update_without_bar, so:
alias_method_chain :update, :bar2
Unfortunately, this will get you the following chain:
update -> update_with_bar2 -> update_with_baz
So update_with_foo is gone!
So, knowing that alias_method_chain won't let you redefine _with methods my solution so far has been to redefine update_without_dirty and do the attribute selection there.
Not quite a solution but a good workaround in many cases for me was simply to move the serialized column(s) to an associated model - often this actually was a good fit semantically anyway.
There is also discussions in https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/8328.
I have a situation where I want to make a request to third-party API(url shortening service) after creating a record in the database (updates a column in the table which stores the short url), in order to decouple the API request from the Model, I have set up an ActiveRecord Observer which kicks in every time a record is created, using after_create callback hook, here is the relevant code:
class Article < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :comments
end
class ArticleObserver < ActiveRecord::Observer
def after_create(model)
url = article_url(model)
# Make api request...
end
end
The problem in the above code is article_url because Rails Routes are not available in either Model or ModelObservers, same as ActionMailer (similar problem exists in Mails where if we need to put an URL we have to configure "ActionMailer::default_options_url"). In theory accessing routes/request object in Model is considered a bad design. To circumvent the above issue I could include the url_helpers module as described in the following URL:
http://slaive-prog.tumblr.com/post/7618787555/using-routes-in-your-model-in-rails-3-0-x
But this does not seem to me a clean solution, does anybody have a pointer on this issue or any advice on how it should be done?
Thanks in advance.
I would definitely not let your models know about your routes. Instead, add something like attr_accessor :unshortened_url on your Article class. Set that field in your controller, and then use it from your observer. This has the added benefit of continuing to work if you later decide to set your shortened URL asynchronously via a background task.
Edit
A couple of things, first of all.
Let's get the knowledge of creating a short_url out of the model
entirely.
We could nitpick and say that the short_url itself doesn't belong in the model at all, but to remain practical let's leave it in there.
So let's move the trigger of this soon-to-be-background task into the controller.
class ArticlesController < ApplicationController
after_filter :short_url_job, :only => [:create]
# ...
protected
def short_url_job
begin
#article.short_url = "I have a short URL"
#article.save!
rescue Exception => e
# Log thy exception here
end
end
end
Now, obviously, this version of short_url_job is stupid, but it illustrates the point. You could trigger a DelayedJob, some sort of resque task, or whatever at this point, and your controller will carry on from here.
I'd like to be able to dispatch from one controller action to another conditionally, based on a combination of query parameters and data in the database.
What I have right now is something like:
class OldController < ApplicationController
def old_controller_action
if should_use_new_controller
new_params = params.dup
new_params[:controller] = "new_controller_action"
redirect_to new_params
return
end
# rest of old and busted
end
end
class NewController < ApplicationController
def new_controller_action
# new hotness
end
end
This works just fine, but it issues an HTTP redirect, which is slow. I'd like to be able to do this same thing, but within the same HTTP request.
Is there a clean way to do this?
Edit: The bounty will go to someone who can show me a clean way to do this that leaves the controllers and their actions relatively untouched (other than the redirect code itself).
Instead of calling code across actions, extract the code to lib/ or something, and call that code from both controllers.
# lib/foo.rb
module Foo
def self.bar
# ...
end
end
# posts_controller
def index
Foo.bar
end
# things_controller
def index
Foo.bar
end
Create an instance of the controller class:
#my_other_controller = MyOtherController.new
Then call methods on it:
#my_other_controller.some_method(params[:id])
I prefer the module idea, but this should do the trick.
You can also pass parameters as a whole from another controller:
#my_other_controller.params = params
I suspect you want option 3, but lets go through the some alternatives first
Option 1 - Push the controller selection logic into a helper that inserts the right link into your view. Benifits - controllers remain clean, Cons - if decision logic depending on submitted values this approach won't work. If URL is being called by external websites then this won't work.
Option 2 - Push the logic back into your model. Pro's - keeps controller clean. Cons - doesn't work well if you've got lots of sesson, params or render / redirect_to interaction.
Option 3 - Stay within the same controller. I suspect you are trying to replace some existing functionality with some new functionality, but only in some cases. Pro's - Simple and have access to everything you need. Cons - only works if it makes sense to use the same controller i.e. you're working with the same entity such as user, place or company.
Lets look an an example for option 3. My links controller has totally diferent behavour for admins than other users ...
class LinksController < ApplicationController
#...
def new
#Check params and db values to make a choice here
admin? ? new_admin : new_user
end
#...
private
def new_admin
#All of the good stuff - can use params, flash, etc
render :action => 'new_admin'
end
def new_user
#All of the good stuff - can use params, flash, etc
render :action => 'new_user'
end
end
If two controllers are trying to do the same thing, there's a very good chance this should be in a model. Take a good look at your design and -- I'm sorry I don't know your experience level with MVC -- read up on thin controller techniques:
http://weblog.jamisbuck.org/2006/10/18/skinny-controller-fat-model
http://www.robbyonrails.com/articles/2007/06/19/put-your-controllers-on-a-diet-already
http://andrzejonsoftware.blogspot.com/2008/07/mvc-how-to-write-controllers.html
If the problem is that you need the other controller to do the render, then maybe the route should have pointed there to begin with, and still the skinny controller technique should save the day.
If extracting the common code between controllers into a module doesn't work for you, I would use Rack middleware. I haven't seen code that uses ActiveRecord within middleware but I don't know of any reason why it shouldn't be possible since people have used Redis and the like.
Otherwise I think your only option would be to restart processing of the request with something like (untested, pseudo example):
env['REQUEST_URI'] = new_controller_uri_with_your_params
call(env)
This is similar to how integration tests are implemented. But I don't know if everything from call until you hit a controller is idempotent and safe to rerun like this. You could trace through the source and see. But even if it's ok now, it might break in any future version of rails or rack.
Using middleware would avoid this by letting you intercept the request before it's been run. You should still be able to share code with your rails application by extracting it out into common modules included in both places.
Honestly I think just doing the simple thing of factoring the common controller code is likely cleaner, but it's hard to know without the details of your situation so I thought I'd go ahead and suggest this.
Do this:
class OldController < ApplicationController
def old_controller_action
if should_use_new_controller
new_controller_action
end
# rest of old and busted
end
end
and the new controller
class NewController < OldController
def new_controller_action
# new hotness
end
end