I have a Course Model which goes the controller and views in a restful way.
For my Course show, it is fully featured. I now want another Course show which will have a simplify page and it like to the original course show.
How can I implement this? I want it to be restful, so in my controller there should only be show, update, index, etc.
Should I create another controller that have an different name from the Model? E.g. Course2?
If it is an admin view vs. public view, I would have entirely different namespaces for two different RESTful controllers. Or if you think you're going have this summary vs. full view thing a lot, create namespaces based on that distinction.
Another option is to encoded the differences in a single ERB template. Or you could actually have the show action render different templates from the same action using some conditional logic.
Without more context though, I can't really say what's the best option. I am personally against creating non-RESTful actions unless it's really going to be a one-off thing. Non-RESTful actions tend to get out of hand in my experience and controllers can get really ugly and unintuitive.
If this is truly just displaying a subset or a different arrangement of the same information, then I think this is a job for the view. At most the controller can use the same action, but select a different view to render, such as might be done if the user wanted to see html vs plain text.
The controllers job is to interpret the model and the views job is to collect and display information. I think you would be concerned about the view having logic in it if you what you describe as a "summary" were more than just a subset of the info, for example if you started to calculate the distances being traveled or how long it would take or how much it would cost based on the data that is provided, then that would be bad.
So I this is just a subset, then I would suggest either rendering partials based on some variable set by your controller, or if organization of the display needs to be substantially difference, then the controller can select a different template to render.
Let's say I have a controller called Books (and a corresponding Book model), and a controller called Users (and a corresponding User model). Each of these controllers has the standard CRUD actions, and they serve as the vehicle for my website's API as well.
Most of the pages on my site fit into this framework easily. For example, viewing a book. Or viewing your user account. Or editing your user account. Etc.
But let's say I have an index that will be somewhat unique: I want to show a list of users AND a list of books. This raises a few questions:
What controller should this go under: UsersController, BooksController, or a new controller?
If I create a new controller, is that considered a violation of any MVC principles since it won't be tied to any particular model in particular?
How would this new controller action retrieve the data? If I write new ActiveRecord queries inside if it, them I'm repeating myself, since I already have code like this in my other controllers. I'd also prefer to consume my own API, if possible.
You can use scopes(google search it) in your model to keep your controllers lean. Depending on what you want to show you can create a new method and view. lets say you have a user dashboard that list your books and the authors which are in seperate models.
you can create a new method called def dashboard inside your user controller since it relates to your user.
def dashboard
end
you would create a helper method in your model to scope the specific queries. Remember to also add the proper route to your routes file.
I hope this helps
Whichever you want.
1) I would probably write another controller, though it may end up to be a question of taste and it may change with the context of the application.
2) I would fetch the data from both models. There is no MVC rule mapping controllers and models one to one.
I am not quite sure what you mean by "queries" but you can put them in model methods (or scopes) to avoid DRY. Of course one gets tempted to do simple queries in controllers because ActiveRecord encaplulates them as methods (e.g. User.find(n) )
I've read that best practice dictates fats models, skinny controllers.
Models should contain business logic such as getting a list of customers based on parameters sent from a controller.
Controllers should contain just enough logic to invoke methods within a model to return to a view.
However I see many examples and tutorials where there is logic within the controller such as a query that accesses a db to get a list of products. I was under the impression that the logic should live in a method inside a model. The controller can then invoke this method, rather than containing the actual logic to query the database.
So if I have a ProductController I might have a Index action which returns an Index View, and I would have a ProductModel which would house my logic to display certain products based on a query string(which the ProductController would pass to said model). Right?
So if I have a ProductController I might have a Index action which returns an Index View, and I would have a ProductModel which would house my logic to display certain products based on a query string(which the ProductController would pass to said model). Right?
That is correct. As per the Model-view-controller architecture:
The model manages the behavior and data of the application domain,
responds to requests for information about its state (usually from the
view), and responds to instructions to change state (usually from the
controller). In event-driven systems, the model notifies observers
(usually views) when the information changes so that they can react.
The view renders the model into a form suitable for interaction,
typically a user interface element. Multiple views can exist for a
single model for different purposes. A viewport typically has a one to
one correspondence with a display surface and knows how to render to
it.
The controller receives user input and initiates a response by making
calls on model objects. A controller accepts input from the user and
instructs the model and viewport to perform actions based on that
input.
Keep the data-related queries and operations in the model; stuff as much as you can in there in accordance with DRY (Don't Repeat Yourself). Make the functions reusable as much as possible so they can be ported into various controllers and used throughout the application as necessary.
The view should contain little - if any - logic outside of view-specific work.
Your controller functions should invoke the model functions required to retrieve and manipulate data, and should be as "thin" as possible (as you pointed out). The smaller and less involved the controller, the easier it will be to add asynchronous features that "don't reboot the application" on the front-end, making for a better user experience. (If you are concerned about this, anyway!)
The Add Controller dialog box in VS 2010 has the option of adding a scaffold with CRUD functions into the controller. This should tell you quite a bit above how the ASP.NET MVC dev. team views this debate.
I have a Rails site using STI with the following classes:
Pages
Homepage < Pages
LandingPage < Pages
On the front-end all requests get handled by the Pages controller. However, if the object detected is actually an instance of LandingPage, i'd like to have the action on a LandingPages controller get called. (for example, the show method in the child controller classes will pull in some specific lookups that aren't always relevant).
Any suggestions on how to best accomplish this?
Thanks
This sounds a bit like you are clouding the MVC distinction, but it should be doable.
I'd add a series of tests on the Pages model (e.g. supports_buzzbar_foo? or wiggums_itemization_controller, then override them as appropriate in the subclasses) and use these in the view to conditionally generate the appropriate links to the controller methods you want.
That way you're keeping each part (roughly) doing it's job.
Markus' solution should work. You could also keep your links in the views pointed to Pages, evaluate the incoming object and then redirect_to the appropriate controller based on the object class.
However, unless you're performing completely different actions with each type of object, then you'll wind up with duplicate code in your controllers. So you might be better off sticking with the Pages controller and just adding some methods that handle the extra lookups that are needed for that object.
In Ruby on Rails Development (or MVC in general), what quick rule should I follow as to where to put logic.
Please answer in the affirmative - With Do put this here, rather than Don't put that there.
MVC
Controller: Put code here that has to do with working out what a user wants, and deciding what to give them, working out whether they are logged in, whether they should see certain data, etc. In the end, the controller looks at requests and works out what data (Models) to show and what Views to render. If you are in doubt about whether code should go in the controller, then it probably shouldn't. Keep your controllers skinny.
View: The view should only contain the minimum code to display your data (Model), it shouldn't do lots of processing or calculating, it should be displaying data calculated (or summarized) by the Model, or generated from the Controller. If your View really needs to do processing that can't be done by the Model or Controller, put the code in a Helper. Lots of Ruby code in a View makes the pages markup hard to read.
Model: Your model should be where all your code that relates to your data (the entities that make up your site e.g. Users, Post, Accounts, Friends etc.) lives. If code needs to save, update or summarise data related to your entities, put it here. It will be re-usable across your Views and Controllers.
To add to pauliephonic's answer:
Helper: functions to make creating the view easier. For example, if you're always iterating over a list of widgets to display their price, put it into a helper (along with a partial for the actual display). Or if you have a piece of RJS that you don't want cluttering up the view, put it into a helper.
The MVC pattern is really only concerned with UI and nothing else. You shouldn't put any complex business logic in the controller as it controls the view but not the logic. The Controller should concern itself with selecting the proper view and delegate more complex stuff to the domain model (Model) or the business layer.
Domain Driven Design has a concept of Services which is a place you stick logic which needs to orchestrate a number of various types of objects which generally means logic which doesn't naturally belong on a Model class.
I generally think of the Service layer as the API of my applications. My Services layers usually map pretty closely to the requirements of the application I'm creating thus the Service layer acts as a simplification of the more complex interactions found in the lower levels of my app, i.e. you could accomplish the same goal bypassing the Service layers but you'd have to pull a lot more levers to make it work.
Note that I'm not talking about Rails here I'm talking about a general architectural style which addresses your particular problem.
Perfect explanations here already, one very simple sentence as conclusion and easy to remember:
We need SMART Models, THIN Controllers, and DUMB Views.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ModelViewController
The Rails way is to have skinny controllers and fat models.
Do put stuff related to authorization/access control in the controller.
Models are all about your data. Validation, Relationships, CRUD, Business Logic
Views are about showing your data. Display and getting input only.
Controllers are about controlling what data goes from your model to your view (and which view) and from your view to your model. Controllers can also exist without models.
I like to think of the controller as a security guard/receptionist who directs you the customer(request) to the appropriate counter where you ask a teller (view) a question. The teller (view) then goes and gets the answer from a manager (model), who you never see. You the request then go back to the security guard/receptionist (controller) and wait until you are directed to go another teller (view) who tells you the answer the manager (model) told them in response to the other teller's (view) question.
Likewise if you want to tell the teller (view) something then largely the same thing happens except the second teller will tell you whether the manager accepted your information. It is also possible that the security guard/receptionist (controller) may have told you to take a hike since you were not authorized to tell the manager that information.
So to extend the metaphor, in my stereotyped and unrealistic world, tellers (views) are pretty but empty-headed and often believe anything you tell them, security guard/receptionists are minimally polite but are not very knowledgeable but they know where people should and shouldn't go and managers are really ugly and mean but know everything and can tell what is true and what isn't.
One thing that helps separate properly is avoiding the "pass local variables from controller to view" anti-pattern. Instead of this:
# app/controllers/foos_controller.rb:
class FoosController < ApplicationController
def show
#foo = Foo.find(...)
end
end
#app/views/foos/show.html.erb:
...
<%= #foo.bar %>
...
Try moving it to a getter that is available as a helper method:
# app/controllers/foos_controller.rb:
class FoosController < ApplicationController
helper_method :foo
def show
end
protected
def foo
#foo ||= Foo.find(...)
end
end
#app/views/foos/show.html.erb:
...
<%= foo.bar %>
...
This makes it easier to modify what gets put in "#foo" and how it is used. It increases separation between controller and view without making them any more complicated.
Well, it sort of depends upon what the logic has to deal with...
Often, it makes sense to push more things into your models, leaving controllers small. This ensures that this logic can easily be used from anywhere you need to access the data that your model represents. Views should contain almost no logic. So really, in general, you should strive to make it so that you Don't Repeat Yourself.
Also, a quick bit of google reveals a few more concrete examples of what goes where.
Model: validation requirements, data relationships, create methods, update methods, destroy methods, find methods (note that you should have not only the generic versions of these methods, but if there is something you are doing a lot, like finding people with red hair by last name, then you should extract that logic so that all you have to do is call the find_redH_by_name("smith") or something like that)
View: This should be all about formatting of data, not the processing of data.
Controller: This is where data processing goes. From the internet: "The controller’s purpose is to respond to the action requested by the user, take any parameters the user has set, process the data, interact with the model, and then pass the requested data, in final form, off to the view."
Hope that helps.
In simple terms, generally,
Models will have all the codes related to table(s), their simple or complex relationships (think them as sql queries involving multiple tables), manipulation of the data/variables to arrive at a result using the business logic.
Controllers will have code/pointers towards the relevant models for the job requested.
Views will accept the user input/interaction and display the resultant response.
Any major deviation from these will put unwanted strain on that part and the overall application performance may get impacted.
Testing, Testing ...
Put as much logic as possible in the model and then you will be able to test it properly. Unit tests test the data and the way it is formed by testing the model, and functional tests test the way it is routed or controlled by testing the controllers, so it follows that you can't test the integrity of the data unless it is in the model.
j