I have the following show-view, where i display basic information about Product and display other User's Products.
<h1>Book <%= #product.name %></h1>
<% #products.each do |product| %>
<ul>
<%= product.name %>
<%= link_to "Make offer", {controller: "offers", :action => 'create', id: product.id } %>
</ul>
Controller
def show
#product = current_user.products.find(params[:id])
#products = Product.all
end
My goal is to make Offer between two Products.
I created Offer model and methods for making Offers:
class Offer < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :product
belongs_to :exchanger, class_name: "Product", foreign_key: "exchanger_id"
validates :product_id, :exchanger_id, presence: true
def self.request(product, exchanger)
unless product == exchanger or Offer.exists?(product, exchanger)
transaction do
create(product: product, exchanger: exchanger, status: "oczekujace")
create(product: exchanger, exchanger: product, status: "oferta")
end
end
#other methods
end
Making offers is working, because I checked it in Console.
My problem is in OffersController:
class OffersController < ApplicationController
before_filter :setup_products
def create
Offer.request(#prod, #exchanger)
redirect_to root_path
end
private
def setup_products
#prod = current_user.products.find(1)
#exchanger = Product.find_by_id(params[:id])
end
end
Problem is with a following line (using link in show-page for products with different id's than 1 works):
#prod = current_user.products.find(1)
But I don't know how to find object in Db for actual product which my show-page shows. Not only for id = 1.
I don't know how to find this object in database.
I don't know the specific answer to your question, but perhaps if I explain what you need to look at, your solution will arise:
Find
Rails isn't magic - it uses ActiveRecord (which is an ORM - Object-Relation Mapper), which means every time you fire a query (through find), your ORM (ActiveRecord) will search the relevant database data for you
The problem you have is that although you're using the correct syntax for your lookup, you may not have a record with an id of 1 in your db.
current_user.products.find(1) tells ActiveRecord to scope the query around the current user, and their products. So you'll get something like like this:
SELECT * FROM 'products' WHERE user_id = '15' AND id = '1'
Objects
Further, you have to remember that Ruby (and Rails by virtue of being built on Ruby) is an object orientated language. This means that everything you load / interact with in the language should be based on an object
The problem you have is you're not associating your object to your Rails framework correctly. What I mean here is described below, but essentially, if you build your Rails framework correctly, it will give you the ability to associate your objects with each other, allowing you to call the various products you need from your offer
This is a simplistic way of looking at it, of course. You'll want to look at this diagram to see how it works:
Bottom line - try treating your application like a series of objects, rather than a logical flow. This will help you appreciate the various associations etc that you need to get it moving forward
Resources
You mention you can't show the product on your show page for an id other than one. I think the problem is really about how to get your show action to work.
If this is the case, let me explain...
Rails is resource-based, meaning that everything you do / create needs to be centred around a resource (object) of some sort. The problem is many people don't know this, and consequently complicate their controller structure for no reason:
Above is the typical "CRUD" routing structure for Rails-based resources. This should demonstrate the way that Rails will typically be constructed -- around resources
--
Further, Rails is built on the MVC programming pattern - meaning you need to use your controller to populate a series of data objects for use in your application.
To this end, if you load a resource, and want to populate it with resourceful information of another object - you need to make sure you have set up the data objects in a way to ensure you can look them up correctly, which either means passing the data through your routes or using a persistent data-type, such as cookies or sessions
The problem you have is you need to pass the product id to your controller somehow. How I'd do that is as follows (using nested resources):
#config/routes.rb
resources :offers do
resources :products #-> domain.com/offers/2/products
end
This will give you the ability to load the products controller with the variables params[:id] for the product, and params[:offer_id] for your Offer made available:
#app/controllers/products_controller.rb
Class ProductsController < ApplicationController
def show
#offer = Offer.find params[:offer_id]
#product = Product.find params[:id]
end
end
Related
I have a Model called Category and another called Articles. Categories are "sections" that have many Articles, for instance News and Events. Both Categories use the kind of Articles, except they're shown under a different section of my website.
Right now I'm creating the News controller (NewsController), and I'd like to visit /news/new to add News. Likewise, the same would apply to EventsController and /events/new.
What do I have to use on my routes to do this?
My first attempt was to use:
resources :categories do
resources :articles, path: '/news'
end
But this forces me to use /categories/1/news/new, which is kinda ugly.
If News will always be category_id 1 and Events will always be 2, how would I specify this on my routes, so I can easily access them with the URLs I mentioned?
Explained Differently
I have an Articles model. I'd like to have a controller called NewsController to handle Articles, so that /news/new (and the rest of the paths) would work with Article. I'd also like to have a controller called EventsController that would also handle Articles, so that /events would also work with Article. The difference between them is that they have different category_id.
Is this possible to do via routes?
Update
Made some progress.
resources :categories do
resources :articles
end
get 'news/new' => 'articles#new', defaults: {category_id: 1}
get 'events/new' => 'articles#new', defaults: {category_id: 2}
This fixes what I wanted to do with /news/new and /events/new, but I'd be missing the rest of the routes (edit, show, update, etc). Also, this makes me use the Articles controller, which currently does not exist and would also make the News controller obsolete/useless.
My logic may be wrong, it's kinda evident with what I just made, but perhaps with this update I can better illustrate what I'm trying to do.
Update 2
I'm currently testing the following:
resources :articles, path: '/news', controller: 'news'
resources :articles, path: '/events', controller: 'events'
So far it makes sense, it makes the routes I wanted, it uses both controllers with their own configurations, and it hasn't spat any errors when I visit both /news and /events (yet).
It's also possible to do:
resources :articles, path: '/news', defaults: {category_id: 1}
resources :articles, path: '/events', defaults: {category_id: 2}
But this would depend on an Article controller, which could handle both types of Categories. Either solution works (theoretically), though I'd incline more on the first since the individual controllers would allow more specific configuration to both cases. The second, though, is more adequate when there're not that many difference between the Articles being created. The defaults property isn't explicitly necessary either, I just put it there for convenience.
Your question is asking something that I question as not making sense and maybe your design is flawed.
Why would you have news resources related to category resources if they are not related?
Is categories just a name space?
If news records really are always going to be related to the same first category as your question implies then you can not use ID's as you have no control over what the id will be for the first category and the first category could have an ID of anything in which case you could just use the top level news resources and do a find first category in your model in a before create then you don't have to worry about an ugly url.
If news records really are related to categories then the you must supply the relevant category id and nest your routes but you could pretty up the url using the following from
https://gist.github.com/jcasimir/1209730
Which states the following
Friendly URLs
By default, Rails applications build URLs based on the primary key --
the id column from the database. Imagine we have a Person model and
associated controller. We have a person record for Bob Martin that has
id number 6. The URL for his show page would be:
/people/6
But, for aesthetic or SEO purposes, we want Bob's name in the URL. The
last segment, the 6 here, is called the "slug". Let's look at a few
ways to implement better slugs. Simple Approach
The simplest approach is to override the to_param method in the Person
model. Whenever we call a route helper like this:
person_path(#person)
Rails will call to_param to convert the object to a slug for the URL.
If your model does not define this method then it will use the
implementation in ActiveRecord::Base which just returns the id.
For this method to succeed, it's critical that all links use the
ActiveRecord object rather than calling id. Don't ever do this:
person_path(#person.id) # Bad!
Instead, always pass the object:
person_path(#person)
Slug Generation
Instead, in the model, we can override to_param to include a
parameterized version of the person's name:
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base def to_param
[id, name.parameterize].join("-") end end
For our user Bob Martin with id number 6, this will generate a slug
6-bob_martin. The full URL would be:
/people/6-bob-martin
The parameterize method from ActiveSupport will deal with converting
any characters that aren't valid for a URL. Object Lookup
What do we need to change about our finders? Nothing! When we call
Person.find(x), the parameter x is converted to an integer to perform
the SQL lookup. Check out how to_i deals with strings which have a mix
of letters and numbers:
"1".to_i
=> 1
"1-with-words".to_i
=> 1
"1-2345".to_i
=> 1
"6-bob-martin".to_i
=> 6
The to_i method will stop interpreting the string as soon as it hits a
non-digit. Since our implementation of to_param always has the id at
the front followed by a hyphen, it will always do lookups based on
just the id and discard the rest of the slug. Benefits / Limitations
We've added content to the slug which will improve SEO and make our
URLs more readable.
One limitation is that the users cannot manipulate the URL in any
meaningful way. Knowing the url 6-bob-martin doesn't allow you to
guess the url 7-russ-olsen, you still need to know the ID.
And the numeric ID is still in the URL. If this is something you want
to obfuscate, then the simple scheme doesn't help. Using a Non-ID
Field
Sometimes you want to get away from the ID all together and use
another attribute in the database for lookup. Imagine we have a Tag
object that has a name column. The name would be something like ruby
or rails. Link Generation
Creating links can again override to_param:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base validates_uniqueness_of :name
def to_param
name end end
Now when we call tag_path(#tag) we'd get a URL like /tags/ruby. Object
Lookup
The lookup is harder, though. When a request comes in to /tags/ruby
the ruby will be stored in params[:id]. A typical controller will call
Tag.find(params[:id]), essentially Tag.find("ruby"), and it will fail.
Option 1: Query Name from Controller
Instead, we can modify the controller to
Tag.find_by_name(params[:id]). It will work, but it's bad
object-oriented design. We're breaking the encapsulation of the Tag
class.
The DRY Principle says that a piece of knowledge should have a single
representation in a system. In this implementation of tags, the idea
of "A tag can be found by its name" has now been represented in the
to_param of the model and the controller lookup. That's a maintenance
headache. Option 2: Custom Finder
In our model we could define a custom finder:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base validates_uniqueness_of :name
def to_param
name end
def self.find_by_param(input)
find_by_name(input) end end
Then in the controller call Tag.find_by_param(params[:id]). This layer
of abstraction means that only the model knows exactly how a Tag is
converted to and from a parameter. The encapsulation is restored.
But we have to remember to use Tag.find_by_param instead of Tag.find
everywhere. Especially if you're retrofitting the friendly ID onto an
existing system, this can be a significant effort. Option 3:
Overriding Find
Instead of implementing the custom finder, we could override the find
method:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base #... def self.find(input)
find_by_name(input) end end
It will work when you pass in a name slug, but will break when a
numeric ID is passed in. How could we handle both?
The first temptation is to do some type switching:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base #... def self.find(input)
if input.is_a?(Integer)
super
else
find_by_name(input)
end end end
That'll work, but checking type is very against the Ruby ethos.
Writing is_a? should always make you ask "Is there a better way?"
Yes, based on these facts:
Databases give the id of 1 to the first record
Ruby converts strings starting with a letter to 0
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base #... def self.find(input)
if input.to_i != 0
super
else
find_by_name(input)
end end end
Or, condensed down with a ternary:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base #... def self.find(input)
input.to_i == 0 ? find_by_name(input) : super end end
Our goal is achieved, but we've introduced a possible bug: if a name
starts with a digit it will look like an ID. If it's acceptable to our
business domain, we can add a validation that names cannot start with
a digit:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base #... validates_format_of :name,
:without => /^\d/ def self.find(input)
input.to_i == 0 ? find_by_name(input) : super end end
Now everything should work great! Using the FriendlyID Gem
Does implementing two additional methods seem like a pain? Or, more
seriously, are you going to implement this kind of functionality in
multiple models of your application? Then it might be worth checking
out the FriendlyID gem: https://github.com/norman/friendly_id Setup
The gem is just about to hit a 4.0 version. As of this writing, you
want to use the beta. In your Gemfile:
gem "friendly_id", "~> 4.0.0.beta8"
Then run bundle from the command line. Simple Usage
The minimum configuration in your model is:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base extend FriendlyId friendly_id :name
end
This will allow you to use the name column or the id for lookups using
find, just like we did before. Dedicated Slug
But the library does a great job of maintaining a dedicated slug
column for you. If we were dealing with articles, for instance, we
don't want to generate the slug over and over. More importantly, we'll
want to store the slug in the database to be queried directly.
The library defaults to a String column named slug. If you have that
column, you can use the :slugged option to automatically generate and
store the slug:
class Tag < ActiveRecord::Base extend FriendlyId friendly_id
:name, :use => :slugged end
Usage
You can see it in action here:
t = Tag.create(:name => "Ruby on Rails")
=> #
Tag.find 16
=> #
Tag.find "ruby-on-rails"
=> #
t.to_param
=> "ruby-on-rails"
We can use .find with an ID or the slug transparently. When the object
is converted to a parameter for links, we'll get the slug with no ID
number. We get good encapsulation, easy usage, improved SEO and easy
to read URLs.
If you are sure there will be only 2 categories, why not simply add a boolean to the articles?
Like: article.event = true if events category, false if news
Then you can add a scopes to Article class for both categories
class Article
scope :events, -> { where(event: true) }
scope :news, -> { where(event: false) }
end
Create controllers, for example:
class EventsController < ApplicationController
def index
#articles = Article.events
end
def create
#article.new(params)
#article.event = true
#article.save
end
...
end
and routes: resources :events
You should try to use dynamic segments: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/routing.html#route-globbing-and-wildcard-segments
Add some slug attribute to Category, it should be unique and add index to it.
# routes
resources :articles, except: [:index, :new]
get '*category_slug/new', to: 'articles#new'
get '*category_slug', to: 'articles#index'
# controller
class ArticlesController < ApplicationController
def index
#category = Category.find_by slug: params[:category_slug]
#articles = #category.articles
end
def new
#category = Category.find_by slug: params[:category_slug]
#article = #category.articles.build
end
...
end
Remember to put a category in a hidden field in the form_for #article
I am using slugs in my project to give my params an other name but I have two params called: "how-does-it-work".
(.../investor/how-does-it-work)
(.../customer/how-does-it-work)
I would like to use the slugs as how they are currently set.
Is there a way to do that?
Create two distinct routes/controllers, and simply query the corresponding ActiveRecord model in the show action. Assuming there is a slug field on your models:
Rails.application.routes.draw do
resources :customers
resources :investors
end
class CustomersController < ApplicationController
def show
#customer = Customer.find_by(slug: params[:id])
end
end
class InvestorsController < ApplicationController
def show
#investor= Investor.find_by(slug: params[:id])
end
end
This is probably the most conventional way to solve this problem in Rails. If you are using the friendly_id gem, the same approach more or less applies, except for maybe the query itself.
Hope this helps.
So, is /investor/ and /customer/ both parts of the slug?
If that's the case, you can split the string, and do a search based on the "how-does-it-work" in the grouping of "investor" or "customer".
If investor and customer are both parts of the routes, you shouldn't have a difficult time there, because they're pointing to two different controller methods. You should be able to write a search based on each of those methods that correspond to the data. If the data is the same, all your doing is pointing the controller to the correct model data with the correct params.
If you're using friendlyId, it usually has built in candidate matching. Also, if you're meaning to match multiple pages to the same slug (which I've done in the past), you can display a results page if you'd like too, by rendering based on the quantity of results.
I have three models, Application, which belongs to a Board, which belongs to a User.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :boards
end
class Board < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
has_many :applications
end
class Application < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :board
end
I'm always only ever going to want to show the boards or applications for the current user. How can I say "show every application for the current board for the current user"? Basically how to query for something for specific parent id values.
You should provide the current user id and board id at first.
user = User.find(user_id) #get current user
board = user.boards.find(board_id) #get current board
board.applications #get every application
You can get more info from Rails Guide--Active Record Associations
show every application for the current board for current_user
The power of ActiveRecord should make this relatively simple:
board = current_user.boards.find params[:board_id]
board.applications #-> collection of Application objects for board
This assumes you're using devise, and thus have access to the current_user method.
If not, you'll be able to use something like the following:
#config/routes.rb
resources :users do
resources :applications #-> url.com/users/:user_id/applications
end
#app/controllers/applications_controller.rb
class ApplicationsController < ApplicationController
def index
#user = User.find params[:user_id]
#boards = #user.boards
end
end
#app/views/applications/index.html.erb
<% #user.boards.each do |board| %>
<%= board.name %>
<% board.applications.each do |application| %>
<%= application.name %>
<% end %>
<% end %>
<% end %>
ORM
I'll give you some context to this (hopefully it will help you in the future).
Firstly, you must understand that Rails is built on top of a relational database - or at least it should be. Relational databases use foreign_keys to give you access to associative data objects:
Whilst this might not seem important, it explains the entire functionality of the ActiveRecord system.
ActiveRecord is what's known as an ORM (Object Relationship Mapper)... in short, gives you the ability to populate objects with associative data from your relational database.
In the case of Ruby/Rails, the object orientated nature of ActiveRecord is a direct result of Ruby. That is, Ruby is an object orientated language; everything you do in it revolves around objects:
With Rails, those objects are built in the models.
Thus, if you want to understand how Rails works - you really need to get down to the model level -- you have to understand that calling Model.find x will build an object around that model, populating it with data from your database.
It's very clever.
The associations are provided by ActiveRecord, and pulled through the relational database infrastructure. This means that you can call the likes of #board = #user.boards.first and populate with the correct data.
Here's a good demonstration of how it works:
I'd share about how running query with ActiveRecord::Relation. To know about query, no matter you want to show data that far away from the current table but when those have associations, those could be connected.
Step by step to do query:
Determine all relations tables
Here, you have to determine tables that related to its table associations. In this case: users, boards, and applications.
Determine the condition
You can put current_user is a condition. You need users, boards, applications
So the condition is:
User.joins(boards: :applications).where("users.id = ?", current_user.id)
NOTE:
I would try to explain. User joins boards because user has many boards. Next boards has many applications so we have to join boards with application into boards: :applications.
This is good explain for query has many through associations. activerecord-query-through-multiple-joins
I have a blog with posts in multiple categories. I'd like to give each category an individual landing page that lists all of the bog posts in that category.
What is the appropriate way to generate the routes and controller actions for each of these landing pages? Would it violate the spirit of REST to create multiple index-esque actions (one action per category) in my posts controller? If so, how else should I do it?
For example, my blog might have two categories, "Music" and "Movies".
GET /posts/ # would list all posts.
GET /music/ # would list all posts in the "Music" category.
GET /movies/ # would list all posts in the "Movies" category.
Apologies if this question has an obvious answer, or if I'm asking the wrong question entirely. I'm new to both Rails and REST and I'm trying to understand the best way to structure applications.
I'm not sure it's totally in REST spirit (i do not fully understand it yet), so i'll leave that part of the question to someone else. As the collection method exists to extend RESTful routes, i assume that it is permitted as long as you don't abuse of it.
I don't think, though, that having routes with no "/posts/" prefix is a good thing, because it would induce that the "/music/" path for instance relates to a completely different resource.
you can do something like this :
(in routes.rb)
resources :posts do
collection do
get 'music'
get 'movies'
end
end
... and then add index-like actions to your controller, e.g.:
def music
#posts = Post.where( category: 'music')
render :index
end
if you have a limited and constant set of categories, this can be DRYed up this way:
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
CATEGORIES = [:music,:movies,:art,:jokes,:friends,:whatever].freeze
end
class PostsController < ApplicationController
Post::CATEGORIES.each do |category|
eval <<-INDEX_LIKE_ACTIONS
def #{category}
#posts = Post.where( category: '#{category}' )
render :index
end
INDEX_LIKE_ACTIONS
end
end
resources :posts do
collection do
Post::CATEGORIES.each {|category| get category.to_s}
end
end
I have 2 equal-access models: Users and Categories
Each of these should have the standard-actions: index, new, create, edit, update and destroy
But where do I integrate the associations, when I want to create an association between this two models?
Do I have to write 2 times nearly the same code:
class UsersController << ApplicationController
# blabla
def addCategory
User.find(params[:id]).categories << Category.find(params[:user_id])
end
end
class CategoriessController << ApplicationController
# blabla
def addUser
Category.find(params[:id]).users << User.find(params[:user_id])
end
end
Or should I create a new Controller, named UsersCategoriesController?
Whats the best practice here? The above example doens't look very DRY.... And a new controller is a little bit too much, I think?
Thanks!
EDIT:
I need to have both of these associations-adding-functions, because f.e.
#on the
show_category_path(1)
# I want to see all assigned users (with possibility to assign new users)
and
#on the
show_user_path(1)
#I want to see all assigned categories (with possibility to assign new categories)
EDIT:
I'm taking about a HBTM relationship.
If you have a situation where you need to do this with has_and_belongs_to_many, you could take the approach you are currently using, or you could build this into your existing update actions.
When you add a habtm relationship, you will get an additional method on your classes...
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :categories
end
With this, you can do this:
user = User.find(params[:id])
user.category_ids = [1,3,4,7,10]
user.save
The categories with those ids will be set. If you name your form fields appropriately, the update can take care of this for you if you want to use checkboxes or multiselect controls.
If you need to add them one at a time, then the methods you've built in your original post are reasonable enough. If you think the repetition you have is a code smell, you are correct - this is why you should use the approach I outlined in my previous answer - an additional model and an additional controller.
You didn't mention if you are using has_and_belongs_to_many or if you are using has_many :through. I recommend has_many :through, which forces you to use an actual model for the join, something like UserCategory or Categorization something like that. Then you just make a new controller to handle creation of that.
You will want to pass the user and category as parameters to the create action of this controller.
Your form...
<% form_tag categorizations_path(:category_id => #category.id), :method => :post do %>
<%=text_field_tag "user_id" %>
<%=submit_tag "Add user" %>
<% end %>
Your controller...
class CategorizationsController < ApplicationController
def create
if Categorization.add_user_to_category(params[:user_id], params[:category_id])
...
end
end
then your categorization class...
class Categorization
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :category
def self.add_user_to_category(user_id, category_id)
# might want to validate that this user and category exist somehow
Categorization.new(:user_id => user_id, :category_id => category_id)
Categorization.save
end
end
The problem comes in when you want to send the users back, but that's not terribly hard - detect where they came from and send them back there. Or put the return page into a hidden field on your form.
Hope that helps.