I have approx 11 functions that look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_acceptance?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
def pending_start(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_start?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
The iteration is always the same, but next unless conditions are different. In case you wonder: it's next unless and ; in it because RuboCop was complaining about it. Is there a solution to implement it better? I hate this spaghetti code. Something like passing the condition into "iterate_it" function or so...
edit: Cannot just pass another parameter because the conditions are double sometimes:
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
edit2: One question yet: how could I slice a symbol, to get a user role from a status? Something like:
:deliverer_started => :deliverer or 'deliverer'?
You can pass another parameter when you use that parameter to decide what condition to check. Just store all possible conditions as lambdas in a hash:
FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS = {
pending_acceptance: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
pending_start: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
picked_up: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.handed_over_late? && fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover? }
}
def process_fulfillments(type, order_fulfillments)
condition = FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS.fetch(type)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless condition.call(order_fulfillment)
collect_fulfillments(order_fulfillment.status, order_fulfillment)
end
end
To be called like:
process_fulfillments(:pending_acceptance, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:pending_start, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:picked_up, order_fulfillments)
you can make array of strings
arr = ['acceptance','start', ...]
in next step:
arr.each do |method|
define_method ( 'pending_#{method}'.to_sym ) do |order_fulfillments|
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
send('pending_#{method}?'); collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
end
for more information about define_method
While next is handy it comes late(r) in the code and is thus a bit more difficult to grasp. I would first select on the list, then do the action. (Note that this is only possible if your 'check' does not have side effects like in order_fullfillment.send_email_and_return_false_if_fails).
So if tests can be complex I would start the refactoring by expressing the selection criteria and then pulling out the processing of these items (wich also matches more the method names you have given), somewhere in the middle it might look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |o|
o.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance?
end
end
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |order_fulfillment|
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
end
end
def calling_code
# order_fulfillments = OrderFulFillments.get_from_somewhere
# Now, filter
collect_fulfillments(pending_start order_fulfillments)
collect_fulfillments(picked_up order_fulfillments)
end
def collect_fullfillments order_fulfillments
order_fulfillments.each {|of| collect_fullfillment(of) }
end
You'll still have 11 (+1) methods, but imho you express more what you are up to - and your colleagues will grok what happens fast, too. Given your example and question I think you should aim for a simple, expressive solution. If you are more "hardcore", use the more functional lambda approach given in the other solutions. Also, note that these approaches could be combined (by passing an iterator).
You could use something like method_missing.
At the bottom of your class, put something like this:
def order_fulfillment_check(method, order_fulfillment)
case method
when "picked_up" then return order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
...
... [more case statements] ...
...
else return order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.send(method + "?")
end
end
def method_missing(method_name, args*, &block)
args[0].each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment_check(method_name, order_fulfillment);
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
Depending on your requirements, you could check if the method_name starts with "pending_".
Please note, this code is untested, but it should be somewhere along the line.
Also, as a sidenote, order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.some_random_method is actually a violation of the law of demeter. You might want to adress this.
Related
I have two methods.
def response_code_description(code)
#response_code_description ||= current_account.one_call_center.response_codes_repository_class.new.to_api_collection
#response_code_description.find {|k| k['code'] == code}.try(:[], 'description')
end
def ticket_response_code_with_description(ticket_response)
#ticket_response_code_with_description ||= ticket_response.ticket.one_call_center.response_codes_repository_class.new.to_api_collection
#ticket_response_code_with_description.find { |k| k['code'] == ticket_response.code }.try(:[], 'description')
end
I think I can combine them.
So.
def response_code_with_description(one_call_center, code)
#ticket_response_code_with_description ||= one_call_center.response_codes_repository_class.new.to_api_collection
#ticket_response_code_with_description.find { |k| k['code'] == code }.try(:[], 'description')
end
and call this method so
response_code_with_description(current_account.one_call_center, ticket_response.code)
response_code_with_description(ticket_response.ticket.one_call_center, code)
what do you think?
The primary difference between these two methods seems to be this one part:
k['code'] == code
k['code'] == ticket_response.code
So in other words you either compare to the argument directly, or the code method called on the argument. Address that problem by making the argument adaptive:
def to_description(code)
code = code.code if (code.respond_to?(:code))
# ... Rest of code presuming `code` is the thing to compare against.
end
This eliminates the difference between the two.
I'd strongly encourage you to revisit the names used in your code here s they are unreasonably verbose.
there is probably a simple way to do this.
I'm trying to refactor something like the following
def foo(baz)
baz.update_first
if baz.has_condition?
yield baz.val if block_given?
baz.a
else
baz.b
end
end
called like
foo(baz) {|b| b.modify}
to something like
def foo(baz)
baz.update_first
bar(baz) {|i| yield i if block_given? }
end
def bar(baz)
if baz.has_condition?
yield baz.val if block_given?
baz.a
else
baz.b
end
end
Will that work? How?
I think it will, but I'd appreciate a clear explanation of how yielding inside a block works... reading through proc.c and vm.c and a relevant git commit in the ruby source code , I think when bar is called in foo it executes until it yields, and then you walk up the frame stack to the local environment pointer for block defined in foo, which is called, where the yield walks up to the block foo is called with, executes it, and then you are back in bar. Is that correct? Is there a better way to do this?
This feels a little weird to me, like inverting control, and it requires foo to know about baz more then I'd like, but I unfortunately can't simply pass a proc or lambda in this code.
I think maybe the concept of yield will be more clear if you look at an alternative syntax, which is converting the bloc to a proc argument.
For example, the following examples are the same
def my_each(arr)
arr.each { |x| yield x }
end
def my_each(arr, &blk)
arr.each { |x| blk.call(x) }
end
# Both are called the same way
my_each([1,2,3]) { |x| print x }
# => 123
When using yield, the variable is available in the method without declaring it in the parameters list. Prepending an & sign to a parameter converts it to a proc, so in the method it can be run with .call.
Here's an example of providing a block to one method then executing it two scopes in:
def method_a(number, &blk)
method_b do
method_c do
blk.call(number)
end
end
end
def method_b(&blk)
blk.call
end
def method_c(&blk)
blk.call
end
method_a(1) { |num| puts num + 1 }
# => 2
Note that blk is not a magic word - you can name the variable whatever you want.
Here's the same thing with yield:
def method_a(number)
method_b do
method_c do
yield number
end
end
end
def method_b
yield
end
def method_c
yield
end
method_a(1) { |num| puts num + 1 }
# => 2
I think using the &blk syntax is clearer because it assigns a variable to the proc. Just because a proc is used in the method doesn't mean you have to ever run Proc.new. The block is automatically converted to a proc.
I'm using Rails 4 and have an Article model that has answer, side_effects, and benefits as attributes.
I am trying to create a before_save method that automatically looks at the side effects and benefits and creates links corresponding to another article on the site.
Instead of writing two virtually identical methods, one for side effects and one for benefits, I would like to use the same method and check to assure the attribute does not equal answer.
So far I have something like this:
before_save :link_to_article
private
def link_to_article
self.attributes.each do |key, value|
unless key == "answer"
linked_attrs = []
self.key.split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.key = linked_attrs.join('; ')
end
end
end
but chaining on the key like that gives me an undefined method 'key'.
How can I go about interpolating in the attribute?
in this bit: self.key you are asking for it to literally call a method called key, but what you want, is to call the method-name that is stored in the variable key.
you can use: self.send(key) instead, but it can be a little dangerous.
If somebody hacks up a new form on their browser to send you the attribute called delete! you don't want it accidentally called using send, so it might be better to use read_attribute and write_attribute.
Example below:
def link_to_article
self.attributes.each do |key, value|
unless key == "answer"
linked_attrs = []
self.read_attribute(key).split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.write_attribute(key, linked_attrs.join('; '))
end
end
end
I'd also recommend using strong attributes in the controller to make sure you're only permitting the allowed set of attributes.
OLD (before I knew this was to be used on all attributes)
That said... why do you go through every single attribute and only do something if the attribute is called answer? why not just not bother with going through the attributes and look directly at answer?
eg:
def link_to_article
linked_attrs = []
self.answer.split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.answer = linked_attrs.join('; ')
end
I have a User model in a ROR application that has multiple methods like this
#getClient() returns an object that knows how to find certain info for a date
#processHeaders() is a function that processes output and updates some values in the database
#refreshToken() is function that is called when an error occurs when requesting data from the object returned by getClient()
def transactions_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().transactions(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().transactions(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
return output
end
end
end
def events_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
end
end
end
I have several functions in my User class that look exactly the same. The only difference among these functions is the line output = getClient().something(date). Is there a way that I can make this code look cleaner so that I do not have a repetitive list of functions.
The answer is usually passing in a block and doing it functional style:
def handle_blocking(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = yield(date)
processHeaders(output)
output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token
output = yield(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
output
end
end
end
Then you call it this way:
handle_blocking(date) do |date|
getClient.something(date)
end
That allows a lot of customization. The yield call executes the block of code you've supplied and passes in the date argument to it.
The process of DRYing up your code often involves looking for patterns and boiling them down to useful methods like this. Using a functional approach can keep things clean.
Yes, you can use Object#send: getClient().send(:method_name, date).
BTW, getClient is not a proper Ruby method name. It should be get_client.
How about a combination of both answers:
class User
def method_missing sym, *args
m_name = sym.to_s
if m_name.end_with? '_on_date'
prop = m_name.split('_').first.to_sym
handle_blocking(args.first) { getClient().send(prop, args.first) }
else
super(sym, *args)
end
end
def respond_to? sym, private=false
m_name.end_with?('_on_date') || super(sym, private)
end
def handle_blocking date
# see other answer
end
end
Then you can call "transaction_on_date", "events_on_date", "foo_on_date" and it would work.
Ok so i have this helper
def current_company_title
(Company.find_by_id(params["company_id"]).name rescue nil) || (#companies.first.name rescue nil) current_user.company.name
end
Basically what I am achieving with this is the following ...
If the param["company_id"] exists then try to get the company and if not then
if #companies exists grab the first company name and if not then get the current users company name
This works but the rescues seem like a hack...any idea on another way to achieve this
Indeed rescue is kind of a hack, id' probably split it up into two methods and then use try to fetch the name if available: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/Object.html#method-i-try
def current_company
#current_company ||= Company.find_by_id(params[:company_id]) || #companies.try(:first) || current_user.try(:company)
end
def current_company_name
current_company.try(:name)
end
Company.find_by_id(params["company_id"]).name`
find and its derivates are meant to be used when you're sure-ish you'll have a positive result, and only in some cases (row was deleted, etc) errors. That's why it raises an exception. In your case, you're assuming it's gonna fail, so a regular where, which would return nil if no rows was found, would do better, and remove the first rescue
#companies.first.name rescue nil
could be replaced by
#companies.first.try(:name)
I'll let you check the api for more on the topic of try. It's not regular ruby, it's a Rails addition.
Less "magic", simple code, simple to read:
def current_company_title
company = Company.where(id: params["company_id"]).presence
company ||= #companies.try(:first)
company ||= current_user.company
company.name
end
Ps. Not a big fan of Rails' try method, but it solves the problem.
def current_company_title
if params["company_id"]
return Company.find_by_id(params["company_id"]).name
elsif #companies
return #companies.first.name
else
return current_user.company.name
end
end
The rescues are a hack, and will obscure other errors if they occur.
Try this:
(Company.find_by_id(params["company_id"].name if Company.exists?(params["company_id"]) ||
(#companies.first.name if #companies && #companies.first) ||
current_user.company.name
then you can extract each of the bracketed conditions to their own methods to make it more readable, and easier to tweak the conditions:
company_name_from_id(params["company_id"]) || name_from_first_in_collection(#companies) || current_user_company_name
def company_name_from_id(company_id)
company=Company.find_by_id(company_id)
company.name if company
end
def name_from_first_in_collection(companies)
companies.first.name if companies && companies.first
end
def current_user_company_name
current_user.company.name if current_user.company
end
[Company.find_by_id(params["company_id"]),
#companies.to_a.first,
current_user.company
].compact.first.name