I am working on a legacy Rails 3.2 application that has a lot of settings a user can manage. Settings are associated with 3 types of model in the system: User, Company and CompanyUser. In order to avoid having to write database migrations each time a new type of setting is added
I've essentially created a key/value store (1 row for each setting) that has a polymorphic association with each of the above mentioned models. A base Setting class handles all of the common functionality like setting the key, relationships etc. each type of setting extends the base class and can contain it's own validation and/or logic. For example:
class Settings::EmailSignature < Setting
validates :whatever
end
For any model that requires a setting I've implemented a has_setting helper method that sets up the association and provides some delegates to directly get and set the setting without needing to go via the associated model object, the User model might look like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_setting :email_signature
end
This side of the code is working well, however the problem I have is when I create the form for the settings. For the user it might make sense to have User, Company and CompanyUser settings mixed together in the same form. Using nested attributes doesn't feel like a good solution in this situation as the settings are not related and there is no common parent object. I've considered using a form object to handle mapping each setting to the correct object but that doesn't feel like a great option either as each setting would require knowing it's id, the associated records id and it's type. This would not be particularly easy to manage when building the form.
I'm about to go down the route of having each setting in it's own form and having the record save automatically as the user edits each item. This would mean only a single record is ever saved at a time and will make things much simpler at the controller layer and also provide a lot of flexibility in how settings a grouped. Before I go down this route I wanted to see if there are any other options for submitting a single form in a single transaction that I may have overlooked?
Please note, this application is written in Rails 3.2 and is not in a state in which it can be easily upgraded to Rails 4 right now so any solutions need to work with Rails 3.2.
Related
I have an application where a User can create many Links, and each Link can store different type of data, depending on what type of Link it is. For example, a TelephoneLinkData stores a telephone number, an EmailLinkData stores an email address, a subject and a body. Each Link also has some fields in common, such as a reference to the user and a name.
I've tried to map this into ActiveRecord as cleanly as I can. Currently, I have a polymorphic relationship from Link to its data-type:
class Link < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :link_data, polymorphic: true
...
class EmailLinkData < ApplicationRecord
has_one :link, as: :link_data
accepts_nested_attributes_for :links
...
Technically, I think this would be described as a reverse polymorphic relationship as instead of a class having possibly different parent classes, what I'm trying to model is a class having multiple possible different child classes. This works fine, and I'm able to create Links through the various *LinkData controllers, but what I'd really want to do is have the Link act as the primary source of interaction for the user, so that the user manages their links through the /links path. For example, I would like the API to allow a User to create a link by posting to /links with the data for the LinkData nested in the link_data field
I've looked around for other ways to model this relationship, and the most common other suggestion seems to be Single-Table Inheritance, but the majority of my columns will differ between LinkData classes, so that feels like the wrong abstraction.
Is there a more idiomatic way to model this data structure?
As is always the case, the best choice depends on the business or application needs, so it's difficult to provide a recommendation without knowing more about what you're trying to do.
It sounds like you prefer the MTI approach, essentially using actual foreign keys and an XOR constraint to the Link table instead of a type column. That's a totally reasonable (although not as common) alternative to a polymorphic association.
However, I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding in your question.
Technically, I think this would be described as a reverse polymorphic relationship as instead of a class having possibly different parent classes...
A polymorphic association in Ruby/Rails doesn't have anything to do with class inheritance (e.g. parents and children). You might be thinking of Single table inheritance. A polymorphic association allows one class (e.g. a Link) to be associated a record in any other table (e.g. the various classes of LinkData) via two fields, a association_id and association_type. These associated classes need not be related to each other. For example, a common use case might be the acts_as_commentable gem, that allows you to add a comment to any other object, and the comment would have a polymorphic association with the other classes.
In the second part of your question you mention that you'd like the User to interact with Link's via a single controller.
I would like the API to allow a User to create a link by posting to /links with the data for the LinkData nested in the link_data field
There's nothing stopping you from implementing this using the initially proposed data model. ActiveRecord may not handle this completely for you out of the box, but you can imagine implementing a link_data= method on the Link class that would create the appropriate associated object.
I'd say the pros/cons of using a polymorphic association would be...
Pros:
easy to setup and use
easy to make required (validate presence of / not null)
easy to associate with a new class
Cons:
no referential / database integrity
have to migrate data if you change a class name
And using the MTI approach is basically the opposite. A bit harder to setup and use, harder to add a new association/table, harder to ensure exactly one association exists... but the long term data quality benefits are significant.
I was able to get things to work the way I wanted to using multiple table inheritance, based largely on this chapter: https://danchak99.wordpress.com/enterprise-rails/chapter-10-multiple-table-inheritance/
Hi I am working on a calendar application using Ruby on Rails. Rails is database agnostic, so in development I'm using SQLite but in production I am looking to use PostgreSQL.The current obstacle that I am facing is with the way I am designing my database schema.
First I have a users table that holds information such as login info and email. Each user has_many plans.
Then I have a plans table that belongs_to users and each plan has an event it references, the date, start time, and end time.
So the plan tables would reference the events table.
Here is my issue:
I would like to have two event tables. One is custom events. The other is default events.
The default events is just a list of common events already defined so the user can already select from a list. The custom events table is a list of events created by a user that references their id.
Here is my solution:
Would it be sufficient to add a new boolean column to the plans table called "custom". And if it is true then the event_id (in plans table) will reference the custom events table, and if it is false then it will reference the default events table. Is this a valid solution and if so, how would I implement it into my Rails application?
Thank you for taking your time to read my question. I am sorry I am an idiot. I am practicing everyday to be better.
Try to not think in terms of tables first, but in terms of classes and the behavior of their instances. What would matter most in the end is not how many tables your design has, but whether the responsibilities have been correctly attributed to the different classes in your model.
In this case it looks like you need two different classes, because some events will belong_to a user and other won't. The former will be created, modified and deleted by that user, and the latter will be managed by an admin. The instances of those classes can be stored in the same table using STI (Single Table Inheritance), with a string column named 'type' to enable Rails to store the class for each instance. The UserEvent class will belong_to :user, and the DefaultEvent won't. Both classes can extend Event, which in turn extends ActiveRecord::Base.
Please let me know if you need additional clarification.
Disclaimer: I really spent time thinking about names of models and variables. If you also do, this question is for you.
I have a Rails project which contains two models: User and Project.
They are connected by the model ProjectsUser, which is a connection model in a many-to-many relationship. This model also holds the role of a user in the given project, along with other attributes such as tier and departments. So this is a has_many :through relationship.
Given this scenario, here is everything that always bothered me on all my rails projects since I started developing on it:
Should I use a ProjectsUserController or better add the relevant actions on UserController and ProjectController? At some point, I want to assign users to a project, or even changing the role of a user in a given project. Is it a better practice to leave those actions on the connection controller, or use the model controllers?
Should I write a method to get the role of a user for a given project? This is basically if I should have a method User#role_for(project) or not. Since this method basically is getting the information from the projects_user object it could make more sense to always let this explicity on the code, since most of the times I'll have the project and the user, but not the projects_user. Is this line of thinking correct, or maybe the problem is that I'm should have more project_user on my code than I really do? Are there good caveats for this?
Should I try to rename my table to a non-standard name if it is not obvious? Ok, I got that if I have the models User and NewsSite I should use has_many :subscriptions, but the thing is that naming those models in real life cases are usually harder, by my experience. When the name ends up not being that obvious (for exemple, in my case, maybe project_participation as #wonderingtomato suggested) is for the best, or in those cases it is better to fall back to the ProjectsUser approach?
One extra cookie for pointing beautiful open source Rails code, or by book indications that might help with my kind of questions.
I would use a specific controller. Even if now the interaction sounds simple, you can't know if in the future you'll need to add more advanced features.
I've been handling these kind of relationships in several projects, and using a controller for the join model has always paid off.
You can structure it this way, for example:
index should expect a params[:project_id], so that you can display only the index of users for a specific project.
create is where you add new users, that is where you create new join models.
update is to modify a value on an existing join model, for example when you want to update the role of a user in a project.
destroy is where you remove users from the project, that is where you delete the corresponding join models.
You might not need a show and edit actions, if you decide to manage everything in the index view.
Also, I'd suggest to choose a different name. Rails relies heavily on naming conventions, and projects_users is the default name for the join_table you would use with a has_and_belongs_to_many association. In theory you can use it for an independent model (and a has_many through:), but it's not immediately clear and you might break something. In addiction, it will confuse the hell out of any new programmer that could join the project in the future (personal experience).
What about calling the model something like project_participation?
If you haven't built a lot of functionality yet, and don't have yet that table in production, changing it now will save you a lot of headaches in the future.
update
1) I stand by what I said earlier: your join model is a full fledged record, it holds state, can be fetched, modified (by the user) and destroyed.
A dedicated controller is the way to go. Also, this controller should handle all the operations that modify the join model, that is that alter its properties.
2) You can define User#role_for(project), just remember that it should properly handle the situation where the user is not participating to the project.
You can also make it explicit with something like:
#user.project_participations.where(project_id: #project.id).first.try(:role)
# or...
ProjectParticipation.find_by(project_id: #project.id, user_id: #user.id).try(:role)
But I'd say that encapsulating this logic in a method (on one of the two models) would be better.
3) You are already using a non standard name for your table. What I mean is that it's the default name for a different kind of association (has_and_belongs_to_many), not the one you are using (has_many through:).
Ask yourself this: is the table backing an actual model? If yes, that model represents something in the real world, and thus should have an appropriate name. If, on the other hand, the table is not backing a model (e.g. it's a join table), then you should combine the names of the tables (models) it's joining.
In my mind, REST doesn't always have to map directly to DB records. A conceptual resource here is the association of Projects to Users. Implementation would be different depending on your persistence layer, but a RESTful API would be standard.
Convention over Configuration in Rails is a great helper, but it isn't necessarily applicable to every case 100% of the way through the stack. There doesn't need to be a 1-to-1 mapping between controllers, models, and their respective names. At the app-level, particularly, I want my routes/controllers to represent the public view of the API, not the internal implementation details of the persistence and domain layers.
You might have a UserProjectsController which you can perform CRUD on to add/remove project associations to users, and it will do the appropriate record manipulation without being overly bound to the DB implementation. Note the naming, where the route might be /user/:id/projects, so it's clear you are manipulating not Users or Projects, but their associations.
I think thinking about this sort of thing (both before and after the fact) is what leads to better designs.
I too start with the model and think about the application structurally. The next step in my oppinion is to build the user interface to make sense based on what makes it easy and useful for the user (spending more effort on things that matter more). So if it makes sense for the user to separately edit the ProjectsUser objects then the ProjectsUsersController is the way to go. More likely editing the join model objects as part of the Project (or User depending on the structure of you app) will be a better fit for the user. In that case using a nested form and editing via the controller (and model) that's the main model referenced by the form is better. The controller really lives to serve the UI, so decisions about it should be dependent on the UI.
Yes, if it makes your code simpler or more readable. If you use role more than once I suspect it will.
I would actually name that model something like Member, or ProjectMember (or Membership). It defines a relationship between a user and a project, so its name should reflect what relationship that is. In the occasions where such a name is too unwieldly or too hard to define then falling back to something like ProjectUser is reasonable (but not ProjectsUser). But I definitely like finding a more meaningful name when possible.
I am trying to use single table inheritance for some of my models. The base model is a Tournament, and I wish to extend this to create different types of tournaments. For instance, I might want to add a SingleEliminationTournament, or a DoubleEliminationTournament, both of which would inherit from Tournament. I have 2 questions, both of them somewhat related.
1) I would like the user to be able to create tournaments with a form, and to do this they would need to select one of the subclasses. Is there a way to get all of the subclasses and use them to populate a select box or something like that?
2) Since this information is going into a form, it would be nice to be able to validate the input into type. To do this, I would like to add a validation in the Tournament class that could check to make sure the Type was valid.
Obviously, I could hard code the values into the validation and the form, but I would not like to do that. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks!
TheModel.subclasses
would give you a list of types you need to include, but only if the models are loaded at runtime. They will always be loaded in production mode. You will have to load them manually in development mode.
You could create a directory with tournaments in them and load them with Dir.glob('app/tournaments/**/*_tournament.rb'). This gives you a nice listing all the tournament files you've specified. Because of convention, you can then infer the proper class name for each tournament.
Store this list of tournament names somewhere for reference in you validations and forms.
I'm not a Rails expert and I'm not sure if this can be considered clean, but for the validation part of your question, this worked for me:
Inside Tournament model:
def validate_type_implemented
klass = type.constantize rescue Object
raise "Given type not available." unless klass.class == Class and klass <= self.class
end
I have a Person model which has many Animal models as pets. Dog is an Animal with a "favorite bone" field, and Cat is an Animal with a "likes catnip?" field and a "favorite fish" field.
#models
class Person(db.model):
pass
class Animal(db.model):
models.ForeignKey(Person) #owner
name = CharField()
class Dog(Animal):
favorite_bone = CharField()
class Cat(Animal):
favorite_fish = CharField()
likes_catnip = BooleanField()
I would like to inline edit all of a Persons pets, in the Person admin form however, I've read that Django inline admin forms don't support polymorphic inline forms[1], in that, you will only get the parent class fields (e.g. not the favorite_bone or favorite_fish and likes_catnip fields.
Where does this problem come from?
What changes could be made to the framework to accommodate this?
If these changes should not be made, why not?
[1] http://www.mail-archive.com/django-users#googlegroups.com/msg66410.html
(This is an old question, but I thought I'd add an answer in case it is still useful. I've been working on a similar question recently.)
I believe it would be challenging to change Django form-generation to do what you want. The reason is that the inline formset uses a single class/form for all rows of the inline -- there are no configuration options that are evaluated per-row of the inline form. I have convinced myself of this by reading the code itself --- look for "inline" and "formset" in django.contrib.admin.options.py, especially lines 1039-1047 (version 1.5.1). This is also the reason why you can't have some fields read-only in existing items and changeable in new items (see this SO question, for example).
The workarounds found for the readonly case have involved a custom widget that produces the desired behavior such as this one. That still won't directly support polymorphism, however. I think you would need to end up mapping your divergent types back to a common ancestor (e.g. have all pet classes able to return a dict of their unique attributes and values), and then create a single custom widget that renders out the polymorphic part for you. You'd then have to map the values back on save.
This might be more challenging than it is worth, and may lead back to the suggestion in the other answer to not use admin for this :-)
may have a look here.
but i think the modeladmin is currently not able todo such things.
you are able to create a custom edit view for your model...
there is almost everything possible.
It may be possible to do this with Generic Relations.