I'm having a bit of difficulty figuring out how to do this in the "Rails" way, if it is even possible at all.
Background: I have a model Client, which has a has_many relationship called :users_and_managers, which is defined like so:
has_many :users_and_managers, -> do
Spree::User.joins(:roles).where( {spree_roles: {name: ["manager", "client"]}})
end, class_name: "Spree::User"
The model Users have a has_many relationship called credit_cards which is merely a simple has_many - belongs_to relationship (it is defined in the framework).
So in short, clients ---has many---> users ---has many---> credit_cards
The Goal: I would like to get all the credit cards created by users (as defined in the above relationship) that belong to this client.
The Problem: I thought I could achieve this using a has_many ... :through, which I defined like this:
has_many :credit_cards, through: :users_and_managers
Unfortunately, this generated an error in relation to the join with the roles table:
SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: spree_roles.name:
SELECT "spree_credit_cards".*
FROM "spree_credit_cards"
INNER JOIN "spree_users" ON "spree_credit_cards"."user_id" = "spree_users"."id"
WHERE "spree_users"."client_id" = 9 AND "spree_roles"."name" IN ('manager', 'client')
(Emphasis and formatting mine)
As you can see in the generated query, Rails seems to be ignoring the join(:roles) portion of the query I defined in the block of :users_and_managers, while still maintaining the where clause portion.
Current Solution: I can, of course, solve the problem by defining a plain 'ol method like so:
def credit_cards
Spree::CreditCard.where(user_id: self.users_and_managers.joins(:credit_cards))
end
But I feel there must be a more concise way of doing this, and I am rather confused about the source of the error message.
The Question: Does anyone know why the AR / Rails seems to be "selective" about which AR methods it will include in the query, and how can I get a collection of credit cards for all users and managers of this client using a has_many relationship, assuming it is possible at all?
The joins(:roles) is being ignored because that can't be appended to the ActiveRecord::Relation. You need to use direct AR methods in the block. Also, let's clean things up a bit:
class Spree::Role < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :clients_and_managers, -> { where(name: %w{client manager}) }
# a better scope name would be nice :)
end
class Client < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :users,
class_name: "Spree::User",
foreign_key: :client_id
has_many :clients_and_managers_roles,
-> { merge(Spree::Role.clients_and_managers) },
through: :users,
source: :roles
has_many :clients_and_managers_credit_cards,
-> { joins(:clients_and_managers_roles) },
through: :users,
source: :credit_cards
end
With that setup, you should be able to do the following:
client = # find client according to your criteria
credit_card_ids = Client.
clients_and_managers_credit_cards.
where(clients: {id: client.id}).
pluck("DISTINCT spree_credit_cards.id")
credit_cards = Spree::CreditCard.where(id: credit_card_ids)
As you can see, that'll query the database twice. For querying it once, check out the following:
class Spree::CreditCard < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user # with Spree::User conditions, if necessary
end
credit_cards = Spree::CreditCard.
where(spree_users: {id: client.id}).
joins(user: :roles).
merge(Spree::Role.clients_and_managers)
Related
I'm using Rails 5.0.0.1 ATM and i've come across issue with ActiveRecord relations when optimizing count of my DB requests.
Right now I have:
Model A (let's say 'Orders'), Model B ('OrderDispatches'), Model C ('Person') and Model D ('PersonVersion').
Table 'people' consists only of 'id' and 'hidden' flag, rest of the people data sits in 'person_versions' ('name', 'surname' and some things that can change over time, like scientific title).
Every Order has 'receiving_person_id' as for the person which recorded order in DB and every OrderDispatch has 'dispatching_person_id' for the person, which delivered order. Also Order and OrderDispatch have creation time.
One Order has many dispatches.
The straightforward relations thus is:
has_many :receiving_person, through: :person, foreign_key: "receiving_person_id", class_name: 'PersonVersion'
But when I list my order with according dispatches I have to deal with N+1 situation, because to find accurate (according to the creation date of Order/OrderDispatch) PersonVersion for every receiving_person_id and dispatching_person_id I'm making another requests.
SELECT *
FROM person_versions
WHERE effective_date_from <= ? AND person_id = ?
ORDER BY effective_date_from
LIMIT 1
First '?' is Order/OrderDispatch creation date and second '?' is receiving/ordering person id.
Using this query I'm getting accurate person data for the time of Order/OrderDispatch creation.
It's fairly easy to write query with subquery (or subqueries, as Order comes with OrderDispatches on one list) in raw SQL, but I have no idea how to do that using ActiveRecord.
I tried to write custom has_one relation as this is as far as I've come:
has_one :receiving_person. -> {
where("person_versions.id = (
SELECT id
FROM person_versions sub_pv1
WHERE sub_pv1.date_from <= orders.receive_date
AND sub_pv1.person_id = orders.receiving_person_id
LIMIT 1)")},
through: :person, class_name: "PersonVersion", primary_key: "person_id", source: :person_version
It works if I use this only for receiving or dispatching person. When I try to eager_load this for joined orders and order_dispatches tables then one of 'person_versions' has to be aliased and in my custom where clause it isn't (no way to predict if it's gonna be aliased or not, it's used both ways).
Different aproach would be this:
has_one :receiving_person, -> {
where(:id => PersonVersion.where("
person_versions.date_from <= orders.receive_date
AND person_versions.person_id = orders.receiving_person_id").order(date_from: :desc).limit(1)},
through: :person, class_name: "PersonVersion", primary_key: "person_id", source: :person_version
Raw 'person_versions' in where is OK, because it's in subquery and using symbol ':id' makes raw SQL get correct aliases for person_versions table joined to orders and order_dispatches, but I get 'IN' instead of 'eqauls' for person_versions.id xx subquery and MySQL can't do LIMIT in subqueries which are used with IN/ANY/ALL statements, so I just get random person_version.
So TL;DR I need to transform 'has_many through' to 'has_one' using custom 'where' clause which looks for newest record amongst those which date is lower than originating record creation.
EDIT: Another TL;DR for simplification
def receiving_person
receiving_person_id = self.receiving_person_id
receive_date = self.receive_date
PersonVersion.where(:person_id => receiving_person_id, :hidden => 0).where.has{date_from <= receive_date}.order(date_from: :desc, id: :desc).first
end
I need this method converted to 'has_one' relation so that i could 'eager_load' this.
I would change your schema as it's conflicting with your business domain, restructuring it would alleviate your n+1 problem
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :versions, class_name: PersonVersion, dependent: :destroy
has_one :current_version, class_name: PersonVersion
end
class PersonVersion < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :person, inverse_of: :versions,
default_scope ->{
order("person_versions.id desc")
}
end
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :order_dispatches, dependent: :destroy
end
class OrderDispatch < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :receiving_person_version, class_name: PersonVersion
has_one :receiving_person, through: :receiving_person_version
end
I have a few models...
class Game < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :manager, class_name: 'User'
has_many :votes
end
class Vote < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :game
belongs_to :voter, class_name: 'User'
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :games, dependent: :destroy
has_many :votes, dependent: :destroy
end
In my controller, I have the following code...
user = User.find(params[:userId])
games = Game.includes(:manager, :votes)
I would like to add an attribute/method voted_on_by_user to game that takes a user_id parameter and returns true/false. I'm relatively new to Rails and Ruby in general so I haven't been able to come up with a clean way of accomplishing this. Ideally I'd like to avoid the N+1 queries problem of just adding something like this on my Game model...
def voted_on_by_user(user)
votes.where(voter: user).exists?
end
but I'm not savvy enough with Ruby/Rails to figure out a way to do it with just one database roundtrip. Any suggestions?
Some things I've tried/researched
Specifying conditions on Eager Loaded Associations
I'm not sure how to specify this or give the includes a different name like voted_on_by_user. This doesn't give me what I want...
Game.includes(:manager, :votes).includes(:votes).where(votes: {voter: user})
Getting clever with joins. So maybe something like...
Game.includes(:manager, :votes).joins("as voted_on_by_user LEFT OUTER JOIN votes ON votes.voter_id = #{userId}")
Since you are already includeing votes, you can just count votes using non-db operations: game.votes.select{|vote| vote.user_id == user_id}.present? does not perform any additional queries if votes is preloaded.
If you necessarily want to put the field in the query, you might try to do a LEFT JOIN and a GROUP BY in a very similar vein to your second idea (though you omitted game_id from the joins):
Game.includes(:manager, :votes).joins("LEFT OUTER JOIN votes ON votes.voter_id = #{userId} AND votes.game_id = games.id").group("games.id").select("games.*, count(votes.id) > 0 as voted_on_by_user")
I may be going about this the wrong way but after reading various SO articles and the Rails docs on associations and scopes, I'm not much wiser.
I have a many-to-may relationship expressed like so:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_program_records
has_many :programs, through: :user_program_records
end
class Program < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :user_program_records
has_many :users, through: :user_program_records
end
class UserProgramRecord < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :program
# has a field "role"
end
The idea is that there are many users in the system and many programs. Programs have many users in them and users may belong to multiple programs. However - within a given program, a user can only have one role.
What I'd really like to be able to write is:
Program.first.users.first.role
and have that return me the role (which is just a String).
What's the cleanest way to do this? Basically, once I've scoped a user to a given program, how do I cleanly access fields on the relevant join table?
You are thinking about it slightly wrong:
user.role
Would be very ambiguous as a user can have different roles in different programs. Instead you need to think of the join entity as a thing of its own.
The easiest way is to select the join model directly:
program = Program.includes(:user_program_records, :users).first
role = program.user_program_records
.find_by(user: program.users.first)
.role
You can use stuff like association extensions and helper methods to make this a bit sexier.
I am trying to use a default scope to impose a sort order on the model QuizCategoryWeight. The goal is to get #possible_answer.quiz_category_weights to return the weights in sorted order.
Update: I have narrowed the problem down to the fact that default scopes seem to work for me as long as they just have an 'order' method but not when the 'includes' method is chained with the 'order' method. However, this chaining does work for named scopes.
Could it be my development environment? Or is this a bug in Rails perhaps?
I am using windows, so maybe that's the problem. Currently on ruby 2.0.0p645 (2015-04-13) [i386-mingw32] and Rails 4.2.4...
The following, using a default scope on QuizCategoryWeight, does not seem to work:
class QuizCategoryWeight < ActiveRecord::Base
#trying to use a default scope, but does not work
default_scope { includes(:quiz_category).order("quiz_categories.sort_order") }
belongs_to :possible_answer, inverse_of: :quiz_category_weights,
class_name: 'QuizPossibleAnswer', foreign_key: 'possible_answer_id'
belongs_to :quiz_category
end
class QuizPossibleAnswer < PossibleAnswer
has_many :quiz_category_weights,
#does not work whether the line below is used or not
->{ includes(:quiz_category).order("quiz_categories.sort_order") },
inverse_of: :possible_answer,
dependent: :destroy,
foreign_key: 'possible_answer_id'
end
class QuizCategory < ActiveRecord::Base
default_scope { order :sort_order }
end
With a named scope, it does work. However, this means that I have to add an argument to my form builder to use the collection 'f.object.quiz_category_weights.sorted'.
class QuizCategoryWeight < ActiveRecord::Base
# named scope works...
scope :sorted, ->{ includes(:quiz_category).order("quiz_categories.sort_order") }
belongs_to :possible_answer, inverse_of: :quiz_category_weights,
class_name: 'QuizPossibleAnswer', foreign_key: 'possible_answer_id'
belongs_to :quiz_category
end
class QuizPossibleAnswer < PossibleAnswer
has_many :quiz_category_weights,
inverse_of: :possible_answer,
dependent: :destroy,
foreign_key: 'possible_answer_id'
end
I think there is a bug with using 'includes' with a default scope, either in the Rails framework generally or in my windows version.
However, I've found that using 'joins' does work. I'm not using any of other the attributes from QuizCategory so it's more appropriate to my use case as well: I only want to sort using the 'sort_order' attribute from the joined table.
The fixed code is:
class QuizCategoryWeight < ActiveRecord::Base
default_scope { joins(:quiz_category).order("quiz_categories.sort_order") }
belongs_to :quiz_category
end
The includes method was introduces for relations to give Rails a hint to reduce database queries. It says: When you fetch Objects of type A, also fetch associated objects, because I need them later, and they should not fetched one by one (the N+1 queries problem)
The includes was first implemented with two database queries. First all A, then all B with one of the ids from A. Now includes often uses a sql join to have only one database query. But this is an internal optimisation.
The concept is object oriented, you want objects from A, then you retrieve the B through the A. So I think, if you set the order from the included B back to A, you are doing more than was meant for the original includes.
I have a many-to-many relationship set up through a join model. Essentially, I allow people to express interests in activities.
class Activity < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :personal_interests
has_many :people, :through => :personal_interests
end
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :personal_interests
has_many :activities, :through => :personal_interests
end
class PersonalInterest < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :person
belongs_to :activity
end
I now want to find out: in which activities has a particular user not expressed interest? This must include activities that have other people interested as well as activities with exactly zero people interested.
A successful (but inefficent) method were two separate queries:
(Activity.all - this_person.interests).first
How can I neatly express this query in ActiveRecord? Is there a (reliable, well-kept) plugin that abstracts the queries?
I think the easiest way will be to just use an SQL where clause fragment via the :conditions parameter.
For example:
Activity.all(:conditions => ['not exists (select 1 from personal_interests where person_id = ? and activity_id = activities.id)', this_person.id])
Totally untested, and probably doesn't work exactly right, but you get the idea.