I am getting a request from mobile app. They are sending a variable isbookmarked that can be either 1 or 0. I am checking in if statement.
if isbookmarked
do something
else
do something
end
The else part is never executed because 0 is not recognised as false
How can I achieve this?
In Ruby everything is truthy except for nil and false. Thus both 0 and 1 are truthy - you will never reach the else part with this set up.
So in your case you want to check exactly for 0 or 1:
if isbookmarked == 1
do something
elsif isbookmarked == 0
do something
end
You can use this gem called wannabe_bool, you will get a to_b method which can convert almost everything to boolean, you can check the gem documentation for all the options available.
if isbookmarked.to_b
do something
else
do something
end
I have tried few of the things on console that might help you
2.0.0-p451 :002 > "1".to_b
=> true
2.0.0-p451 :003 > "0".to_b
=> false
2.0.0-p451 :004 > 1.to_b
=> true
2.0.0-p451 :005 > 0.to_b
=> false
https://github.com/prodis/wannabe_bool
Hope that helps!
A helper method like below may come in handy.
def truthy?(val)
val.present? && !val.to_s.strip.in?(['false', '0'])
end
So, in addition to #AndreyDaineko, you also can use case
case isbookmarked
when 1
do something
when 0
do something
else
something go wrong
end
I would argue that you should use the same logic that Rails uses to identify booleans. Rails implements type casting to booleans like this:
FALSE_VALUES = [false, 0, "0", "f", "F", "false", "FALSE", "off", "OFF"].to_set
def cast_value(value)
if value == ""
nil
else
!FALSE_VALUES.include?(value)
end
end
You can use this implementation like this (Rails 5 version):
ActiveModel::Type::Boolean.new.cast(isbookmarked)
Or the Rails 4.2 versions would look like this:
ActiveRecord::Type::Boolean.new.type_cast_from_user(isbookmarked)
You can also use zero? to check whether the value is zero or not. But there is no special method to check 1 only way isbookmarked == 1
if isbookmarked.zero?
do something
else
do something
end
Related
Actually I am new to rails I was trying to build authentication from scratch but didn't have any idea. So I was reading some code on internet and I am struck at a function.What does !! means over here. Is it first making it false then true? What it is and why we are using it?
def logged_in?
!!current_user
end
! means "not", so !! means "not-not". ! is often called "bang" (because 'exclamation mark' is too long, i assume) and so !! is often called "double bang". See also "hashbang" or "shebang" which mean #!.
It has the effect of converting all "truthy"* things into the boolean true and all "falsy" things into the boolean false.
Note that in Ruby, unlike some languages, the only things that are "falsy" are false and nil. 0, "", [], {}, and any other object that isn't false or nil, such as a User object, are "truthy".
*"truthy" means it will pass an "if" test.
We use double bang to get value as Boolean (true/false). Here is demonstration:
2.1.2 :001 > my_var = "string"
=> "string"
2.1.2 :002 > !my_var
=> false
2.1.2 :003 > !!my_var
=> true
2.1.2 :005 > null_var = nil
=> nil
2.1.2 :006 > !!null_var
=> false
So, as you can see that, if we want to get corresponding boolean value for an object then we use double bang (!!).
In your case, I assume current_user can have user object OR nil value. Instead of getting user object or nil, it's using !! to convert it into corresponding boolean.
Hope it helps. Happy Learning!
EDIT:
I would like to add that in Ruby, it's convention that method name ending with ? will return boolean value. So, your mentioned code us using !! in logged_in? to return boolean instead of User or NULL class objects.
You are trying to do something like this
def logged_in?
current_user
you are asking here if it is a current user
def logged_in?
!current_user
while you are asking here is the logged in user is not current_user.
I really don't know what I am not seeing here, because it looks to me that "if false" is acting like "if true". To make it clear, I actually took screenshots of my RubyMine 6.0.3 screens. This one is probably simple, but it surely looks crazy to me...
The code is in DevicesController#update. It has a breakpoint that occurs within an "if false" statement that shouldn't be executing. See in this shot that I am on line 48 within the if:
The variable dump at this time follows, that shows that params[:device][:chg_pwd], the if condition, is false.
So, why am I within this if statement when its condition is false?
"false" is true in ruby. you want == "true"
In Ruby, only nil and false are false. For more, you can read this gist
if params[:device][:chg_pwd] == "true"
Depending on your situation, the other options are
Set to nil, or false. Then your existing code would work.
Set to "" and check with blank? as a previous version of RSB's answer
used to say, this is Rails only though, and does involve a small
semantic difference (blank vs false)
It returns "false", which is a string, so it returns true.
if params['is_admin'] == 'true'
# YOUR CODE goes HERE
end
Use this instead of "false" as "false" is a string and not a boolean value in your code
if params[:devise][:chg_pwd].eql?("false")
# code
else
# code
end
This would explain it better
2.0.0p247 :012 > if "true"
2.0.0p247 :013?> p "hello"
2.0.0p247 :014?> end
"hello"
=> "hello"
2.0.0p247 :015 > if "false"
2.0.0p247 :016?> p "hi"
2.0.0p247 :017?> end
"hi"
=> "hi"
I'm on Rails 3.0.x, Ruby 1.9.2 and needs a way to test for params that may or may not exists, e.g.,
params[:user] #exists
params[:user][:login] #may not exist
What's the proper Ruby syntax for the 2nd check so it doesn't barf?
Try following:
params.has_key? :user #=> true because exists
params[:user].has_key? :login #=> true if exist otherwise false
#WarHog has it right, pretty much. It's very unusual for an item in params to sometimes return a string but other times return a Hash, but regardless you can handle that easily enough:
if params.has_key?(:user) && params[:user].respond_to?(:has_key?)
do_something_with params[:user][:login]
end
Instead of respond_to? :has_key? you could also do respond_to? :[] or just is_a? Hash. Mostly a matter of preference.
You would just get nil in the second case.. that shouldn't be a problem, no?
e.g. params[:user][:login] just returns nil, which evaluates to false if the :user entry exists in the first Hash.
However if the nesting would be one or more levels deeper, and the missing hash entry was somewhere in the middle, you would have problems. e.g.:
params[:user][:missing_key][:something]
in that case Ruby would try to evaluate nil[:something] and raise an exception
you could do something like this:
begin
x = params[:user][:missing_key][:something]
rescue
x = nil
end
... which you could further abstract...
Currently I have the following 2 lines of code
errors.add_to_base I18n.t :error_message if value != 1
return false if !errors.blank?
Is it possible to condense this into 1 line of code? I need to do this in multiple places with different error message and condition. Also, "return false" is to stop the flow of an ActiveRecord lifecycle.
Hmm. If you know errors.blank? will be true unless the first condition fires then:
(errors.add_to_base I18n.t :error_message; return) if value != 1
Update: Aha, you are willing to define a method. How about a Proc object? It's better than a method here in that if the Proc block returns then the invocation will return from the surrounding method.
test = Proc.new do |cond, msg|
errors.add_to_base I18n.t msg if cond
return unless errors.blank?
end
# ...
test.call value != 1, :error_message
Note that you don't need to return false as a plain return will return nil and that will be good enough unless some sadist is doing something like f().class == NilClass. :-)
You can take advantage of how the boolean logic operators work and do something like this:
value != 1 && errors.add_to_base I18n.t :error_message && return false
Not very clear, I wouldn't recommend using it. Also if errors.add_to_base returns something that's "falseish" the return false wouldn't happen.
Remember: "Always code as if the person who will maintain your code is a violent psychopath who knows where you live”
This is really racking my brain, but maybe I'm trying to hard.
I'm passing a param via a URL (example.com?debug=true)
So I basically want to say:
if params[:debug] == true
do xyz
else
do abc
end
But for whatever reason that if statement just isn't doing like it seems like it should.
Is there a better way to do that if/else statement based on a param being true or false?
The debug param will either have a value of true, no value, or a value of false (as far as the URL goes).
params come in as strings, so you need to compare against "true", not true.
You could use ActiveRecord's method of checking truthful values if you don't want to reinvent the wheel (this is what is used when passing params inside an ActiveRecord object
Rails 3-4.1
if ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean(params[:debug])
do xyz
else
do abc
Rails 4.2.0
ActiveRecord::Type::Boolean.new.type_cast_from_database(params[:debug])
Rails 5
ActiveModel::Type::Boolean.new.cast(params[:debug])
Might be worth wrapping in a helper but never the less it's quite flexible:
rails c
Loading development environment (Rails 3.2.6)
1.9.3p194 :001 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean '1'
=> true
1.9.3p194 :002 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean '0'
=> false
1.9.3p194 :003 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean 1
=> true
1.9.3p194 :004 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean true
=> true
1.9.3p194 :005 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean 'true'
=> true
1.9.3p194 :006 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean 'on'
=> true
1.9.3p194 :007 > ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean 'off'
Custom extension
Some people frown on extending core classes but this does fit with the DRY principle.
# config/initializer/boolean.rb
class Boolean
def self.parse(value)
ActiveRecord::ConnectionAdapters::Column.value_to_boolean(value)
end
end
Then used like
if Boolean.parse(params[:debug])
then xyz
Since Rails/ActiveRecord 4.2.0 it is
if ActiveRecord::Type::Boolean.new.type_cast_from_user params[:debug]
do xyz
else
do abc
end
In Rails 5 it is:
if ActiveModel::Type::Boolean.new.cast params[:debug]
do xyz
else
do abc
end
But for whatever reason that if statement just isn't doing like it seems like it should.
I can almost guarantee that it is doing exactly what it should. When things don't make sense, one of our assumptions is wrong.
Is the value actually a boolean or is it string (or something else?). If the value is a string then of course the comparison to the boolean value true will fail. Try comparing to 'true' and see if that works.
how about this?
params[:debug].to_s.downcase == 'true'