I am trying to convert my website from Wordpress/php to Ruby on Rails and am having trouble grasping the conceptual side of OOP/MVC in Ruby/Rails as it relates to passing variables between views. I have found many answers to how to do it, but I am still unclear exactly what is going on and I think it is because I have not grasped the concept of classes and methods in this particular context.
In PHP I can simply pass a variable to another page like this:
http://myurl.com/scores/?myteam=team1
To do this in Rails - pass one variable (myteam in the example previous) between views using a link - then:
what methods, classes and objects are involved (and I need to set up) and
at what point are they initialized?
Read this Controller's Rails guide, especially parameters section: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/action_controller_overview.html#parameters
Basically you will get access to this variable in controller using params hash, for this example it will be params[:myteam].
Related
This is a conceptual question and I haven't been able to find the answer in SO, so here I go:
Why instance variables are used to connect controllers and views? Don't we have two different objects of two different classes (Controller vs Views). So, when the view is rendered we are in a different context, but we are using instance variables of another object? Isn't this breaking encapsulation in somehow?
How does Rails manage to do that matching from one object to another? Does it clone all the instances variables of the controller to the view?
In a sense, you could say that it is breaking encapsulation. I have found that if you are not careful, it is easy to get your business/presentation logic mixed together in Rails. It usually starts when I am writing a view template, and discover that I need some value which I didn't pass from the controller. So I go back, and tweak the controller to suit what I need in the view. After one tweak, and another, and another, you look at the controller method, and it is setting all kinds of instance variables which don't make sense unless you look at the view to see what they are for. So you end up in a situation where you need to look at both controller and view to understand either, rather than being able to take one or the other in isolation.
I think that using instance variables (together with the Binding trick) is simply a way to pass whatever values you need from controller to view, without having to declare parameters in advance (as you would when defining a method). No declarations means less code to write, and less to change when you want to refactor and reorganize things.
Rails uses eval and Binding to pass controller instance variables to views. See this presentation from Dave Thomas, there's a small example at minute 46' that explains how this is done.
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?
Simple question about best-practice. I'm using Kohana... is it okay to use helpers in views? For example, to use URL::site(). I could pass it from controller, you know. I assume it's okay, because there are helpers like HTML that is meant to be used in views, right?
The way you're currently doing it is ok, altough the whole practice of having any logics in views is questionable, but it's how Kohana is currently recommending.
When you get to use ViewModel pattern (with Kostache?), you'll separate all logics from templates. Until then, it's ok to use methods that don't do anything that should be done in the controller / model (echo, conditions and loops are "considered allowed").
i have a function that converts an array to a hash which i would like to use across all the model, controller and view files in the rails app.
Does this violate some core design principle, or am i missing something really obvious?
UPDATE: This is actually a software engineering question. I want to understand why some "convenient" things are not allowed in rails, and i suspect it is precisely because they do not want us to do it
This is likely actually a bad practice. It'd likely be better to instead always work with arrays and hashes in your controllers and models and if necessary convert them in the view to the alternative.
That is, if the data is natively represented as a array throughout your application work with it that way and if required to be a hash in the view either convert it first and assign it or convert it in the view using a helper.
View global helpers go in: helpers/application_helper.rb
If you must call a helper from a controller you can still define it there and I believe you can do:
def Something
....
hashData = #template.helper(arrayData)
end
Calling helpers in a model is REALLY not a good idea, there's no point.
As a final note, encapsulating this logic in a library would likely be ideal, your controllers can call a library & your view helpers can as well.
I think you are: views should not need that method. The controller ought to do it and pass it along to the view for display. The controller or, better yet, service layer might apply that method to a model object, but there's little reason for a model object to know about it.
I am trying to make a taglib to represent an object (to read and display at the UI). When creating an object (save method in the controller), I see the domain class and association are created by the auto assignment of parameter
def Book = new Book(params)
It also maps complex types (for eg: joda time). I wonder about the naming convention necessary to facilitate this mapping. Out of curiosity, can someone also point where in the grails source code I could see how grails handles this mapping. I'm still learning Spring and probably this would be a good exercise.
Thanks,
Babu.
AFAIK the naming conventions are rather straightforward. If there's a field params.foo and the object you are binding to has a field foo, it will bind the value, assuming the type conversion works properly. If there's a params.bar.id set with an Long value and your object has a complex property of type Bar, it will lookup this instance and inject it.
If you need more control over the binding process, you might want to use bindData.
If you are interested into the details of the binding process, have a look at Java's PropertyEditor as this is what is being used in the background. I wrote a blog post on how to create and register PropertyEditors a while ago, maybe it helps you getting started with that stuff.