So I'm making authorization from scratch based on Ryan Bates' railscast.
I figured the problem i'm facing is in this part of code
action == 'create' || action == 'update'
What I want to say is that if the action is create OR action is update (so either of them) AND obj.has_accepted_acceptance? it should return false, but it returns true unless I eliminate || action == 'update' part of code. only then it works as intended.
So is the problem with the operators?
Thank you in advance for your time!
class Permission < Struct.new(:user)
def allow?(controller, action, obj = nil)
if controller == "acceptances"
if action == 'create' || action == 'update' && obj.has_accepted_acceptance?
return false
end
end
return true
end
end
Try grouping your conditions:
if (action == 'create' || action == 'update') && obj.has_accepted_acceptance?
You can use the ActiveSupport .in? to convert the first from two clauses to one:
if action.in?(%w[create update]) && obj.has_accepted_acceptance?
The same in plain old ruby would be:
if %w[create update].includes?(action) && obj.has_accepted_acceptance?
Related
I have this method which works fine but I'm thinking that it may be improved, either for readability and/or efficience.
def default_something
something =
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_by(id: DEFAULT_SOMETHING_ID)
{
'name' => something.name,
'day' => something.meta_data[:day],
'hour' => something.meta_data[:hour],
}
end
I can "beautify it" by creating some more methods like:
def default_something
something = def A || def B || (etc)
end
def A
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier)
end
def B
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
end
In addition I should say:
find_for_B part only retrieves a value when claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode || claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode = 'ASL'
Is the "beautified" version the way to go?
And/or should I add an if statement regarding
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
to improve efficiency and readability, stating it happens only when "indivcode" = "ASL"?
What else can I do?
I've tried reading some tutorials on refactoring and I am struggling with conditionals. I don't want to use a ternary operator but maybe this should be extracted in a method? Or is there a smart way to use map?
detail.stated = if value[:stated].blank?
nil
elsif value[:stated] == "Incomplete"
nil
elsif value[:is_ratio] == "true"
value[:stated] == "true"
else
apply_currency_increment_for_save(value[:stated])
end
If you move this logic into a method, it can be made a lot cleaner thanks to early return (and keyword arguments):
def stated?(stated:, is_ratio: nil, **)
return if stated.blank? || stated == "Incomplete"
return stated == "true" if is_ratio == "true"
apply_currency_increment_for_save(stated)
end
Then...
detail.stated = stated?(value)
stated = value[:stated]
detail.stated = case
when stated.blank? || stated == "Incomplete"
nil
when value[:is_ratio] == "true"
value[:stated] == "true"
else
apply_currency_increment_for_save stated
end
What's happening: when case is used without an expression, it becomes the civilized equivalent of an if ... elsif ... else ... fi.
You can use its result, too, just like with if...end.
Move the code into apply_currency_increment_for_save
and do:
def apply_currency_increment_for_save(value)
return if value.nil? || value == "Incomplete"
return "true" if value == "true"
# rest of the code. Or move into another function if its too complex
end
The logic is encapsulated and it takes 2 lines only
I like #Jordan's suggestion. However, it seems the call is incomplete -- the 'is_ratio' parameter is also selected from value but not supplied.
Just for the sake of argument I'll suggest that you could go one step further and provide a class that is very narrowly focused on evaluating a "stated" value. This might seem extreme but it fits with the notion of single responsibility (the responsibility is evaluating "value" for stated -- while the 'detail' object might be focused on something else and merely makes use of the evaluation).
It'd look something like this:
class StatedEvaluator
attr_reader :value, :is_ratio
def initialize(value = {})
#value = ActiveSupport::StringInquirer.new(value.fetch(:stated, ''))
#is_ratio = ActiveSupport::StringInquirer.new(value.fetch(:is_ratio, ''))
end
def stated
return nil if value.blank? || value.Incomplete?
return value.true? if is_ratio.true?
apply_currency_increment_for_save(value)
end
end
detail.stated = StatedEvaluator.new(value).stated
Note that this makes use of Rails' StringInquirer class.
I need to filter objects in array.
It works with one parameters
#usersc = #usersb.select { |user| user.need_appartment? }
but i would like use more parameters than in SQL/ActiveRecord :
(need_bedrooms_min >= :nb_bedrooms_min) AND (budget_amount BETWEEN :budget_min AND :budget_max) AND ((need_surface_min BETWEEN :surface_min AND :surface_max) OR (need_surface_max BETWEEN :surface_min AND :surface_max))"+req,{nb_bedrooms_min: params[:nb_bedrooms_min], budget_min: params[:budget_min], budget_max: params[:budget_max],surface_min: params[:surface_min], surface_max: params[:surface_max]}).paginate(:page => params[:page])
I dont find the solution... Anyone can help me ?
F.
select does exactly what you need with as many parameters as you might want:
#usersb.select do |user|
user.need_bedrooms_min >= params[:nb_bedrooms_min].to_i &&
(params[:budget_min].to_i..params[:budget_max].to_i).include? user.budget_amount &&
((params[:surface_min].to_i..params[:surface_max].to_i).include? user.need_surface_min ||
(params[:surface_min].to_i..params[:surface_max].to_i).include? user.need_surface_max)
end
Or, more cleanly:
class User
def needs_apartment?(params)
budget_min, budget_max, surface_min, surface_max, nb_bedrooms_min =
%w{budget_min budget_max surface_min surface_max nb_bedrooms_min}.map{|k| params[k.to_sym].to_i}
budget_range = budget_min..budget_max
surface_range = surface_min..surface_max
need_bedrooms_min >= nb_bedrooms_min &&
budget_range.include? budget_amount &&
(surface_range.include?(need_surface_min) || surface_range.include?(need_surface_max))
end
end
#usersb.select{|user| user.needs_apartment?(params)}
I have a module:
module Voteable
def has_up_vote_of user
return ! self.votes.select{|v| v.user.id == user.id && v.value == 1}.empty?
end
def has_down_vote_of user
return ! self.votes.select{|v| v.user.id == user.id && v.value == -1}.empty?
end
end
Which is mixed into a model:
class Comment < ActiveRecord::Base
include Voteable
end
In a controller code, there is a check:
has_up_vote = #voteable.has_up_vote_of #user
has_down_vote = #voteable.has_down_vote_of #user
#voteable and #user are existing model items, found in a DB.
Suppose, voteable item has up-vote of user. After executing the code, has_up_vote will be equal to true, and has_down_vote will be nil.
Why nil, instead of false ?
I have used several variations of methods, but the problem is the same. Even this gives me the same effect:
def has_up_vote_of user
has = self.votes.select{|v| v.user.id == user.id && v.value == 1}.empty?
return !has.nil? && has
end
Posssible, i'm misunderstanding something, but this behavior is strange
Update
I've noticed very strange behaviour.
When i change methods to trivial:
def has_up_vote_of user
return false
end
def has_down_vote_of user
return false
end
They both returns nil, when i debug the app.
But, from console, they returns false.
It's more stange, because i cannot do anything with these results. These code is not working:
has_up_vote = false if has_up_vote.nil?
has_down_vote = false if has_down_vote.nil?
I think that the debugging environment you're running in is interfering with the actual value of has_down_votes. The select method should never return nil as defined.
Instead of !{}.empty? you could use {}.present?
Its more readable and the output will always be true/false only
I know this doesn't get to the root cause of your strange problem, but it should give you the results you want. Instead of
return ! self.votes.select{|v| v.user.id == user.id && v.value == -1}.empty?
try
return !!self.votes.select{|v| v.user.id == user.id && v.value == -1}.any?
The double exclamation point is intentional -- it will cause nil to become false. (!arr.empty? is equivalent to arr.any? which is equivalent to !!arr.any? -- except the last one converts the nil to false)
I asked a question earlier which elicited some great responses.
Here's the earlier question
On the back of some advice given there, I've tried moving the following controller logic
if params[:concept][:consulted_legal] == 0 && params[:concept][:consulted_marketing] == 1
#concept.attributes = {:status => 'Awaiting Compliance Approval'}
elsif params[:concept][:consulted_marketing] == 0 && params[:concept][:consulted_legal] == 1
#concept.attributes = {:status => 'Awaiting Marketing Approval'}
elsif params[:concept][:consulted_marketing] == 0 && params[:concept][:consulted_legal] == 0
#concept.attributes = {:status => 'Awaiting Marketing & Legal Approval'}
else
#concept.attributes = {:status => 'Pending Approval'}
end
into the model, as so:
def set_status
if status.blank?
if (consulted_legal == true) && (consulted_marketing == true)
status = "Pending Approval"
elsif (consulted_legal == true) && (consulted_marketing == false)
status = "Awaiting Marketing Approval"
elsif (consulted_legal == false) && (consulted_marketing == true)
status = "Awaiting Legal Approval"
elsif (consulted_legal == false) && (consulted_marketing == false)
status = "Awaiting Marketing & Legal Approval"
end
end
true # Needs to return true for the update to go through
end
I am calling that from a before_save callback.
As a default, both the consulted_legal and consulted_marketing attributes are set to false and not null, which is why I am testing for == false or true here, instead of asking
if consulted_legal?
for instance.
However, this logic doesn't seem to be working. If I inspect the object, status is not being set to anything, ever. Can anyone spot why this might be happening? Have I got how attributes are accessed wrong in models, for instance?
TIA
Instead of status = try self.status =. I've found that I needed to use self. to change a model's attribute within the model.
It's also much better to have errors.empty? at the end instead of true, so if you ever use errors.add_to_base in the future, your set_status method is ready to abort a save.
Edit:
You may also want to check out acts_as_state_machine. It looks like a plugin for exactly what you're doing.
Are you setting the parameters from user input?
If they're not defined as boolean database columns, then you'll be assigning a string to them, which will never be equal to true.