I have an activerecord class method scope that returns all when the scope should remain unchanged. However I would expect it to use the counter cache when chaining size to the all scope. Here is an example:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
has_many :comments
end
class Comment < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :post, counter_cache: true
def self.filtered(only_approved:)
if only_approved
where(approved: true)
else
all
end
end
end
# This does not use the counter cache but should since the scope is unchanged
Post.first.comments.filtered(only_approved: false).size
So it looks like Post.comments.size triggers the counter cache while Post.comments.all.size does not. Is there a way around this?
This happens because of how the counter_cache works. It needs 2 things:
Add the counter_cache: true to the belonging model (Comment)
Add a column comments_count to the having model (Post)
The column added to the Post model gets updated everytime you create or destroy a model so it will count all existing records on the table. This is the reason why it won't work on a scope (a scope might be useful to filter the resulting records, but the actual column comments_count is still counting the whole table).
As a workaround I'd suggest you to take a look at and see if it can be used for your usecase https://github.com/magnusvk/counter_culture.
From their own repo:
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :category
scope :awesomes, ->{ where "products.product_type = ?", 'awesome' }
scope :suckys, ->{ where "products.product_type = ?", 'sucky' }
counter_culture :category,
column_name: proc {|model| "#{model.product_type}_count" },
column_names: -> { {
Product.awesomes => :awesome_count,
Product.suckys => :sucky_count
} }
end
The only way I found to deal with this is to pass the scope to the class method and return it if no additional scope is to be added. It's not as clean but it works. Here is the updated code:
class Post < ApplicationRecord
has_many :comments
end
class Comment < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :post, counter_cache: true
def self.filtered(scope:, only_approved:)
if only_approved
scope.where(approved: true)
else
scope
end
end
end
# This works with counter cache if the scope is returned as is
Comment.filtered(scope: Post.first.comments, only_approved: false).size
Is there any way to prepend to the existing order section of an active record query?
I the following associations defined on my Location model:
class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :location_parking_locations, -> { by_votes }
has_many :parking_locations, through: :location_parking_locations
end
In the LocationParkingLocation model, the by_votes scope is defined:
class LocationParkingLocation < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :location
belongs_to :parking_location
scope :by_votes, -> { order("upvotes - downvotes ASC, upvotes + downvotes DESC, id ASC") }
end
I would like to add a scope to the ParkingLocation model that adds an additional scope to the query, but I want that scope to be prepended to the existing order section of the query. The scope looks like this:
class ParkingLocation < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :location_parking_locations
has_many :locations, through: :location_parking_locations
scope :with_pending, -> { order(creation_pending: :desc) }
end
My hope is to call location.parking_locations.with_pending, and get back a collection of parking_locations, ordered by votes, but with any pending parking locations at the beginning of the collection. Is this possible?
Since a scope is a lambda, you can use arguments, for example:
scope :your_scope, -> (sort_order = :desc) { order(name: sort_order) }
Just set it up as you need and call it with a (possibly optional) argument:
your_model.your_scope(:desc)
I'm trying to return records where the association is either present or not:
I tried these scopes:
class Booking < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :availability
scope :with_availability, -> {where{availability.not_eq nil}}
scope :without_availability, -> {where{availability.eq nil}}
end
Try this:
class Booking < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :availability
scope :with_availability, -> { joins{availability} }
scope :without_availability, -> { joins{availability.outer}.where{availability.id.eq nil} }
end
Use instance methods instead
def with_availability
availability.present?
end
def without_availability
availability.blank?
end
I know there is better way but this should work as well:
class Booking < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :availability
scope :with_availability, -> {where(id: Availability.pluck(:booking_id))}
scope :without_availability, -> {where.not(id: Availability.pluck(:booking_id))}
end
Also I tried to reproduce the solution by the link below but I didn't manage to do this (but it could be helpful):
Rails - has_one relationship : scopes for associated and non-associated objects
I want to be able to use two columns on one table to define a relationship. So using a task app as an example.
Attempt 1:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
So then Task.create(owner_id:1, assignee_id: 2)
This allows me to perform Task.first.owner which returns user one and Task.first.assignee which returns user two but User.first.task returns nothing. Which is because task doesn't belong to a user, they belong to owner and assignee. So,
Attempt 2:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, foreign_key: [:owner_id, :assignee_id]
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
That just fails altogether as two foreign keys don't seem to be supported.
So what I want is to be able to say User.tasks and get both the users owned and assigned tasks.
Basically somehow build a relationship that would equal a query of Task.where(owner_id || assignee_id == 1)
Is that possible?
Update
I'm not looking to use finder_sql, but this issue's unaccepted answer looks to be close to what I want: Rails - Multiple Index Key Association
So this method would look like this,
Attempt 3:
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.by_person(person)
where("assignee_id => :person_id OR owner_id => :person_id", :person_id => person.id
end
end
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.by_person(self)
end
end
Though I can get it to work in Rails 4, I keep getting the following error:
ActiveRecord::PreparedStatementInvalid: missing value for :owner_id in :donor_id => :person_id OR assignee_id => :person_id
TL;DR
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.where("owner_id = ? OR assigneed_id = ?", self.id, self.id)
end
end
Remove has_many :tasks in User class.
Using has_many :tasks doesn't make sense at all as we do not have any column named user_id in table tasks.
What I did to solve the issue in my case is:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :owned_tasks, class_name: "Task", foreign_key: "owner_id"
has_many :assigned_tasks, class_name: "Task", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User"
# Mentioning `foreign_keys` is not necessary in this class, since
# we've already mentioned `belongs_to :owner`, and Rails will anticipate
# foreign_keys automatically. Thanks to #jeffdill2 for mentioning this thing
# in the comment.
end
This way, you can call User.first.assigned_tasks as well as User.first.owned_tasks.
Now, you can define a method called tasks that returns the combination of assigned_tasks and owned_tasks.
That could be a good solution as far the readability goes, but from performance point of view, it wouldn't be that much good as now, in order to get the tasks, two queries will be issued instead of once, and then, the result of those two queries need to be joined as well.
So in order to get the tasks that belong to a user, we would define a custom tasks method in User class in the following way:
def tasks
Task.where("owner_id = ? OR assigneed_id = ?", self.id, self.id)
end
This way, it will fetch all the results in one single query, and we wouldn't have to merge or combine any results.
Extending upon #dre-hh's answer above, which I found no longer works as expected in Rails 5. It appears Rails 5 now includes a default where clause to the effect of WHERE tasks.user_id = ?, which fails as there is no user_id column in this scenario.
I've found it is still possible to get it working with a has_many association, you just need to unscope this additional where clause added by Rails.
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :tasks, ->(user) {
unscope(:where).where(owner: user).or(where(assignee: user)
}
end
Rails 5:
you need to unscope the default where clause
see #Dwight answer if you still want a has_many associaiton.
Though User.joins(:tasks) gives me
ArgumentError: The association scope 'tasks' is instance dependent (the scope block takes an argument). Preloading instance dependent scopes is not supported.
As it is no longer possible you can use #Arslan Ali solution as well.
Rails 4:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, ->(user){ where("tasks.owner_id = :user_id OR tasks.assignee_id = :user_id", user_id: user.id) }
end
Update1:
Regarding #JonathanSimmons comment
Having to pass the user object into the scope on the User model seems like a backwards approach
You don't have to pass the user model to this scope.
The current user instance is passed automatically to this lambda.
Call it like this:
user = User.find(9001)
user.tasks
Update2:
if possible could you expand this answer to explain what's happening? I'd like to understand it better so I can implement something similar. thanks
Calling has_many :tasks on ActiveRecord class will store a lambda function in some class variable and is just a fancy way to generate a tasks method on its object, which will call this lambda. The generated method would look similar to following pseudocode:
class User
def tasks
#define join query
query = self.class.joins('tasks ON ...')
#execute tasks_lambda on the query instance and pass self to the lambda
query.instance_exec(self, self.class.tasks_lambda)
end
end
I worked out a solution for this. I'm open to any pointers on how I can make this better.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.by_person(self.id)
end
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :completed, -> { where(completed: true) }
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
def self.by_person(user_id)
where("owner_id = :person_id OR assignee_id = :person_id", person_id: user_id)
end
end
This basically overrides the has_many association but still returns the ActiveRecord::Relation object I was looking for.
So now I can do something like this:
User.first.tasks.completed and the result is all completed task owned or assigned to the first user.
Since Rails 5 you can also do that which is the ActiveRecord safer way:
def tasks
Task.where(owner: self).or(Task.where(assignee: self))
end
My answer to Associations and (multiple) foreign keys in rails (3.2) : how to describe them in the model, and write up migrations is just for you!
As for your code,here are my modifications
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, ->(user) { unscope(where: :user_id).where("owner_id = ? OR assignee_id = ?", user.id, user.id) }, class_name: 'Task'
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
Warning:
If you are using RailsAdmin and need to create new record or edit existing record,please don't do what I've suggested.Because this hack will cause problem when you do something like this:
current_user.tasks.build(params)
The reason is that rails will try to use current_user.id to fill task.user_id,only to find that there is nothing like user_id.
So,consider my hack method as an way outside the box,but don't do that.
Better way is using polymorphic association:
task.rb
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :taskable, polymorphic: true
end
assigned_task.rb
class AssignedTask < Task
end
owned_task.rb
class OwnedTask < Task
end
user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assigned_tasks, as: :taskable, dependent: :destroy
has_many :owned_tasks, as: :taskable, dependent: :destroy
end
In result, we can use it so:
new_user = User.create(...)
AssignedTask.create(taskable: new_user, ...)
OwnedTask.create(taskable: new_user, ...)
pp user.assigned_tasks
pp user.owned_tasks
I'm trying to query across models with the following setup
Class Scorecard < AR::Base
default_scope where(:archived => false)
belongs_to :user
has_many :scorecard_metrics
end
Class ScorecardMetric < AR::Base
belongs_to :scorecard
end
Class User < AR::Base
has_many :scorecards
end
I am trying to query from scorecard metrics with a named scope that joins scorecard and I want it to include the default scope for scorecard, my current implementation (which works) looks like this
# on ScorecardMetric
scope :for_user, lambda {
|user| joins(:scorecard).
where("scorecards.user_id = ? and scorecards.archived = ?", user.id, false)
}
This just seems messy to me, is there any way to join and include the default scope of the joined association?
Looks like I found the answer I was looking for, I just did this
scope :for_user, lambda { |user| joins(:scorecard).where('scorecards.user_id = ?', user.id) & Scorecard.scoped }
which is much nicer without the duplicated logic