A "group" belongs to a "owner" and has many "members". Both the "owner" and the "members" can create "events" under the "group."
Then I need to restrict members to create events under particular groups.
So I tried to add a boolean column to groups table:
When true - this "group" allow all "members" to create "events."
When false - this "group" doesn't allow "members" to create "events", which means only "owner" can create events.
but what should this column name be like?
allows_members_to_create_events
allows_only_owner_to_create_events
requires_owner_authority_to_create_events
other ones?
Or am I doing something wrong with my database design?
I know I'm a little bit too picky about naming but I always have trouble with this kind of naming problem and waste times. So I asked here.
A good name is one of the hardest things to do in coding and I too spend silly time mulling over good naming.
One of my judging criterion is see how the name is being used.
In database point of view i.e. reading from the model source code, only_owner_can_create is a good explanatory name.
In controller point of view, you may want to write if group.allows_members_to_create? or unless group.only_owner_can_create
Having the context where this field will be used will help you greatly to determine the name.
Also you CAN have the best of both worlds - just use alias_methods to add more methods!
Instead of boolean column add numeric column to hold some numeric values. This numeric values are inserted based on the their levels. You have to define these levels in you application.
member_can_create_events would be my pick (single data point that I am).
That would give:
my_group.members_can_create_events?
Though I also agree with Mohanraj that a more complete solution might have users with levels and a column that relates to "users over level X can create events here"... but if you want a quick solution, the boolean column works just fine.
Related
I have two entities: Location and Employee. Each employee works in a single location at a time. For any given moment in time, the model is as follows:
There is, however, a requirement to also store historical information for all locations and employees for every end-of-month. I can achieve this by adding a Month PK attribute in both entities, but: how do I handle the relationship in that case?
A foreign key has to reference a composite PK in its entirety. Several alternatives come to mind:
Option 1: repeat the Month attribute in the Employee entity to get the full PK as FK attributes. This feels a bit redundant? If an employee has existed in a given month, surely she has to work in a location in the same month - i.e. the two Month attributes have to always have the exact same value:
Option 2: re-use the Month attribute in the PK of the Employee entity as a foreign key referencing Location. I don't even know if this is allowed (note: I'm going to be using SQL Server eventually, if it matters here)?
Option 3: create a separate bridge entity that holds the history of Location-Employee relationships. This feels kind of neat, but then again I have some doubts as to whether or not I can use one Month attribute here or if I need two of them. Also, it would allow many-to-many relationships (an employee in several locations on a given month), which is not supposed to happen in this case and I'd like to be able to enforce this in the data model.
Am I missing something obvious here? What is the "correct" and properly normalized solution? Or should I just leave the FK constraints out?
I'm building a Ruby on Rails App for a business and will be utilizing an ActiveRecord database. My question really has to do with Database Architecture and really the best way I should organize all the different tables and models within my app. So the App I'm building is going to have a database of orders for an ECommerce Business that sells products through 2 different channels, a subscription service where they pick the products and sell it for a fixed monthly fee and a traditional ECommerce channel, where customers pay for their products directly. So essentially while all of these would be classified as the Order model, there are two types of Orders: Subscription Order and Regular Order.
So initially I thought I would classify all this activity in my Orders Table and include a field 'Type' that would indicate whether it is a subscription order or a regular order. My issue is that there are a bunch of fields that I would need that would be specific to each type. For instance, transaction_id, batch_id and sub_id are all fields that would only be present if that order type was a subscription, and conversely would be absent if the order type was regular.
My question is, would it be in my best interest to just create two separate tables, one for subscription orders and one for regular orders? Or is there a way that fields could only appear conditional on what the Type field is? I would hate to see so many Nil values, for instance, if the order type was a regular order.
Sorry this question isn't as technical as it is just pertaining to best practice and organization.
Thanks,
Sunny
What you've described is a pattern called Single Table Inheritance — aka, having one table store data for different types of objects with different behavior.
Generally, people will tell you not to do it, since it leads to a lot of empty fields in your database which will hurt performance long term. It also just looks gross.
You should probably instead store the data in separate tables. If you want to get fancy, you can try to implement Class Table Inheritance, in which there are actually separate but connected table for each of the child classes. This isn't supported natively by ActiveRecord. This gem and this gem might be able to help you, but I've never used either, so I can't give you a firm recommendation.
I would keep all of my orders in one table. You could create a second table for "subscription order information" that would only contain the columns transaction_id, batch_id and sub_id as well as a primary key to link it back to the main orders table. You would still want to include an order type column in the main database though to make it a little easier when debugging.
Assuming you're using Postgres, I might lean towards an Hstore for that.
Some reading:
http://www.devmynd.com/blog/2013-3-single-table-inheritance-hstore-lovely-combination
https://github.com/devmynd/hstore_accessor
Make an integer column called order_type.
In the model do:
SUBSCRIPTION = 0
ONLINE = 1
...
It'll query better than strings and whenever you want to call one you do Order:SUBSCRIPTION.
Make two+ other tables with a foreign key equal to whatever the ID of the corresponding row in orders.
Now you can keep all shared data in the orders table, for easy querying, and all unique data in the other tables so you don't have bloated models.
I'm doing a fairly complicated model on Ruby on Rails right now, and I was wondering what the correct "Rails" way of doing "custom types" for attributes was. For example, I have a table businesses which has a string attribute region. But region can only be one of a predefined list of possibilities (that could later be expanded). My question is: where do I define this Region type?
I know I could make a specific regions table (i.e. a Region model) which could house all the options, and then I could make an association between the models that have regions to that table. The problem is that I have many of these types on my model, so I would end up with more than half the tables in my database being "custom type tables" that only store the possible values for these types. Is that practical?
I also read that you could do this through validations (i.e. validate when saving a record, that the variables were within the possible values). This seems very impractical, since I want to make this model expandable, and form views would need to load the possible values of types into select boxes, etc. If I used this method, every time I needed to add a new possible value for a type, I'd have to change the validation and the views.
Is there a standard way of doing something like this? Something like defining types (maybe models without DB backing?) where I could list all the possible values easily?
Thank you for any help or suggestions on this. It's been bothering me for a long time while doing RoR apps, and I'm tired of hacking around it.
I guess there are many different ways to do it. Personally I would keep things very simple and DRY.
In an initializer, set arrays in the global scope:
REGIONS = ["region A", "region B", "region C"]
In the models, use validations as you wrote. Check that the value is in the REGIONS array.
In the views, use Rails helpers to populate selects, radios etc. from the REGIONS array. If you always have the same select, write your own helper region_select for instance.
I'm using MS SQL Server 2008R2, but I believe this is database agnostic.
I'm redesigning some of my sql structure, and I'm looking for the best way to set up 1 to many relationships.
I have 3 tables, Companies, Suppliers and Utilities, any of these can have a 1 to many relationship with another table called VanInfo.
A van info record can either belong to a company, supplier or utility.
I originally had a company_id in the VanInfo table that pointed to the company table, but then when I added suppliers, they needed vaninfo records as well, so I added another column in VanInfo for supplier_id, and set a constraint that either supplier_id or company_id was set and the other was null.
Now I've added Utilities, and now they need access to the VanInfo table, and I'm realizing that this is not the optimum structure.
What would be the proper way of setting up these relationships? Or should I just continue adding foreign keys to the VanInfo table? or set up some sort of cross reference table.
The application isn't technically live yet, but I want to make sure that this is set up using the best possible practices.
UPDATE:
Thank you for all the quick responses.
I've read all the suggestions, checked out all the links. My main criteria is something that would be easy to modify and maintain as clients requirements always tend to change without a lot of notice. After studying, research and planning, I'm thinking it is best to go with a cross reference table of sorts named Organizations, and 1 to 1 relationships between Companies/Utilities/Suppliers and the Organizations table, allowing a clean relationship to the Vaninfo table. This is going to be easy to maintain and still properly model my business objects.
With your example I would always go for 'some sort of cross reference table' - adding columns to the VanInfo table smells.
Ultimately you'll have more joins in your SP's but I think the overhead is worth it.
When you design a database you should not think about where the primary/foreign key goes because those are concepts that doesn’t belong to the design stage. I know it sound weird but you should not think about tables as well ! (you could implement your E/R model using XML/Files/Whatever
Sticking to E/R relationship design you should just indentify your entity (in your case Company/supplier/utilities/vanInfo) and then think about what kind of relationship there is between them(if there are any). For example you said the company can have one or more VanInfo but the Van Info can belong only to one Company. We are talking about a one – to- many relationship as you have already guessed. At this point when you “convert” you design model (a one-to many relationship) to a Database table you will know where to put the keys/ foreign keys. In the case of a one-to-Many relationship the foreign key should go to the “Many” side. In this case the van info will have a foreign keys to company (so the vaninfo table will contain the company id) . You have to follow this way for all the others tables
Have a look at the link below:
https://homepages.westminster.org.uk/it_new/BTEC%20Development/Advanced/Advanced%20Data%20Handling/ERdiagrams/build.htm
Consider making Com, Sup and Util PKs a GUID, this should be enough to solve the problem. However this sutiation may be a good indicator of poor database design, but to propose a different solution one should know more broad database context, i.e. that you are trying to achive. To me this seems like a VanInfo should be just a separate entity for each of the tables (yes, exact duplicate like Com_VanInfo, Sup_VanInfo etc), unless VanInfo isn't shared between this entities (then relationships should be inverted, i.e. Com, Sup and Util should contain FK for VanInfo).
Your database basically need normalization and I think you're database should be on its fifth normal form where you have two tables linked by one table. Please see this article, this will help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_normal_form
You may also want to see this, database normalization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
In some of my forms I have to provide a dropdown where users can select some districts. The thing is, there will always be a fixed number of districts ( 31 in this case ). Should I create a model named District having only a string field,populate it with the data and be done with it?
It's content will not modify over time. Is there another way?
You should take a look at jnunemakers scam-gem. It mimics the AR for you and lets you define the models in your Rails app without a backing database/table.
I use this whenever I want something to do psuedo belongs to/has many relationships, but do not want to back a model with a database as the data does not change often, if ever.
Making a table-backed model is the simplest way. Otherwise you're going to end up implementing half of an AR model anyway, because you'll want to use collection_select at some point.
I guess it depends on how you want to store the districts and whether you want to do any querying etc.
For example, you could just have the list of districts as a constant, then store them as a string in your models (not very elegant), or as you say you could create a model and use active record associations - this would allow you to easily query on districts etc.