I need to create a Rails app that will show/utilize our current CRM system data. The thing is - I could just take Rails and use current DB as backend, but the table names and column names are the exact opposite Rails use.
Table names:
+-------------+----------------+--------------+
| Resource | Expected table | Actual table |
+-------------+----------------+--------------+
| Invoice | invoices | Invoice |
| InvoiceItem | invoice_items | InvItem |
+-------------+----------------+--------------+
Column names:
+-------------+-----------------+---------------+
| Property | Expected column | Actual column |
+-------------+-----------------+---------------+
| ID | id | IniId |
| Invoice ID | invoice_id | IniInvId |
+-------------+-----------------+---------------+
I figured I could use Views to:
Normalize all table names
Normalize all column names
Make it possible to not use column aliases
Make it possible to use scaffolding
But there's a big but:
Doing it on a database level, Rails will probably not be able to build SQL properly
App will probably be read-only, unless I don't use Views and create a different DB instead and sync them eventually
Those disadvantages are probably even worse when you compare it to just plain aliasing.
And so I ask - is Rails able to somehow transparently know the id column is in fact id, but is InvId in the database and vice versa? I'm talking about complete abstraction - simple aliases just don't cut it when using joins etc. as you still need to use the actual DB name.
Related
I'm trying to make an unconventional join, like this:
builder.HasOne(x => x.MATERIAL_OBJ)
.WithMany()
.HasForeignKey(c => c.MATERIAL)
.HasPrincipalKey(p => p.MATERIAL_CODE);
because the data from one of my tables comes from an external source, and I need to make a join with another table by a non-PK (VARCHAR) field.
My tables are as follow:
Transits table
+---------+----------+
| ID | MATERIAL |
+---------+----------+
| 1 | ABC |
| 2 | HIJ |
+---------+----------+
Material table:
+---------------+---------------+
| MATERIAL_CODE | SUPPLIER_NAME |
+---------------+---------------+
| ABC | SUP 1 |
| DEF | SUP 2 |
+---------------+---------------+
The transits table always comes filled, and sometimes with materials we dont have avaliable. If we have the material, then the object comes filled correctly, the problem I'm facing is that whenever the material doesn't exist in the table, my odata simply doesn't work properly, breaking the return object, like so:
Is there any way to odata to return null, instead of breaking the return?
EDIT: below is the return value:
{"#odata.context":"http://MYAPI/odata/$metadata#TRANSIT(Id,MATERIAL,MATERIAL_OBJ,MATERIAL_OBJ()","value":[{"Id":12567,"MATERIAL":"REDACTED"
Also, this seems to be something with odata, as the objects are filled in the API.
I figured out that was a problem with EF Core because of the unconventional mapping I did. I decided to do a View instead and mapped that to EF.
I've been using PostgreSQL arrays to store group members and administrators in a Rails Project.
So my table looked like this:
Column | Type
-------------+-----------------------------
id | bigint
name | character varying
members | character varying[]
admins | character varying[]
description | text
created_at | timestamp without time zone
But recently I switched to ActiveRecord many-to-many associations, because it made the code easier to read and because everyone else does it.
But which solution is better in terms of performance? Are the PostgreSQL Arrays be faster because they don't need another table or am I missing something?
So I have been out of the coding game for a while and recently decided to pick up rails. I have a question about the concept of Join tables in rails. Specifically:
1) why are these join tables needed in the database?
2) Why can't I just JOIN two tables on the fly like we do in SQL?
A join table allows a clean linking of association between two independent tables. Join tables reduce data duplication while making it easy to find relationships in your data later on.
E.g. if you compare a table called users:
| id | name |
-----------------
| 1 | Sara |
| 2 | John |
| 3 | Anthony |
with a table called languages:
| id| title |
----------------
| 1 | English |
| 2 | French |
| 3 | German |
| 4 | Spanish |
You can see that both truly exist as separate concepts from one another. Neither is subordinate to the other the way a single user may have many orders, (where each order row might store a unique foreign_key representing the user_id of the user that made it).
When a language can have many users, and a user can have many languages -- we need a way to join them.
We can do that by creating a join table, such as user_languages, to store every link between a user and the language(s) that they may speak. With each row containing every matchup between the pairs:
| id | user_id | language_id |
------------------------------
| 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 | 4 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 |
| 5 | 3 | 1 |
With this data we can see that Sara (user_id: 1) is trilingual, while John(user_id: 2) and Anthony(user_id: 3) only speak English.
By creating a join table in-between both tables to store the linkage, we preserve our ability to make powerful queries in relation to data on other tables. For example, with a join table separating users and languages it would now be easy to find every User that speaks English or Spanish or both.
But where join tables get even more powerful is when you add new tables. If in the future we wanted to link languages to a new table called schools, we could simply create a new join table called school_languages. Even better, we can add this join table without needing to make any changes to the languages SQL table itself.
As Rails models, the data relationship between these tables would look like this:
User --> user_languages <-- Language --> school_languages <-- School
By default every school and user would be linked to Language using the same language_id(s)
This is powerful. Because with two join tables (user_languages & school_languages) now referencing the same unique language_id, it will now be easy to write queries about how either relates. For example we could find all schools who speak the language(s) of a user, or find all users who speak the language(s) of a school. As our tables expand, we can ride the joins to find relations about pretty much anything in our data.
tl;dr: Join tables preserve relations between separate concepts, making it easy to make powerful relational queries as you add new tables.
I am using Ruby on Rails 4 and MySQL. I have three types. One is Biology, one is Chemistry, and another is Physics. Each type has unique fields. So I created three tables in database, each with unique column names. However, the unique column names may not be known before hand. It will be required for the user to create the column names associated with each type. I don't want to create a serialized hash, because that can become messy. I notice some other systems enable users to create user-defined columns named like column1, column2, etc.
How can I achieve these custom columns in Ruby on Rails and MySQL and still maintain all the ActiveRecord capabilities, e.g. validation, etc?
Well you don't have much options, your best solution is using NO SQL database (at least for those classes).
Lets see how can you work around using SQL. You can have a base Course model with a has_many :attributes association. In which a attribute is just a combination of a key and a value.
# attributes table
| id | key | value |
| 10 | "column1" | "value" |
| 11 | "column1" | "value" |
| 12 | "column1" | "value" |
Its going to be difficult to determin datatypes and queries covering multiple attributes at the same time.
I have a ChunkRelationship model with a table that looks like this:
+----+---------------+----------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| id | chunk_id | chunk_partner | created_at | updated_at |
+----+---------------+----------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2010-02-14 12:11:22 | 2010-02-14 12:11:22 |
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 2010-02-14 12:11:22 | 2010-02-14 12:11:22 |
+----+---------------+----------------+---------------------+---------------------+
Both entries are foreign keys to a Chunk model. Right now, the relationship is being saved twice, once in both directions ( 2 => 1 and 1 => 2). But the relationship can be saved once, because if one ID is known then the other can be found (What is this type of table called?).
I am wondering what the Rails way of doing that would be. I was thinking of creating a before_validation callback on the ChunkRelationship model and taking the smallest number of the two and always saving that to the chunk_id column, which would allow for checking for duplicates easier before saving. But from there I'm not sure how I would retrieve them.
The intended end result would be for chunk.partners to return all the rows paired with it, no matter which column either one is in.
Perhaps you are looking for the has_many_and_belongs_to association: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#the-has-and-belongs-to-many-association
This should create a many-to-many relationship which I believe you are describing.