I'm writing a module for ActiveRecord models. In short it's a method that can call a series of where, join and order statements. The statements are not known at the time of writing so it is not possible to use scopes. So far it works well but there is one point I'd like to improve.
Here is my method:
def filter
rel = respond_to?(:filter_scope) ? filter_scope : where(1)
# Do other stuffs with `rel`
# ...
rel
end
It first call filter_scope if it is defined, or it obtain an ActiveRecord::Relation from the target model. To do so I use where(1) to force the model to return a relation object. This works well whenever I call filter directly on the model (User.filter) or on a relation (User.order(:name).filter, User.my_scope.filter.order(:age) etc...)
But using where(1) fells a bit dirty. In Rails 3 I would be using all instead but it's depreciated in Rails 4. Any idea on how to improve this?
Thanks in advance
Note: I cannot substitute where(1) by self because there is a possibility that self would be returned from filter and User.filter would be a class, therefore not usable as a query object.
In Rails 3 I would be using all instead but it's depreciated in Rails 4.
I don't think all is depreciated, it used to return an Array (rails 3) and now returns an ActiveRecord::Relation so you should be able to use it for chaining queries.
see http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Scoping/Named/ClassMethods.html#method-i-all
Returns an ActiveRecord::Relation scope object.
Related
I'm not sure if this is just a lacking of the Rails language, or if I am searching all the wrong things here on Stack Overflow, but I cannot find out how to add an attribute to each record in an array.
Here is an example of what I'm trying to do:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
#user_for_record = User.where(:id => individual_news_story[:user_id]).pluck('name', 'profile_image_url');
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_name) = #user_for_record[0][0]
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_avatar) = #user_for_record[0][1]
end
Any ideas?
If the NewsStory model (or whatever its name is) has a belongs_to relationship to User, then you don't have to do any of this. You can access the attributes of the associated User directly:
#news_stories.each do |news_story|
news_story.user.name # gives you the name of the associated user
news_story.user.profile_image_url # same for the avatar
end
To avoid an N+1 query, you can preload the associated user record for every news story at once by using includes in the NewsStory query:
NewsStory.includes(:user)... # rest of the query
If you do this, you won't need the #user_for_record query — Rails will do the heavy lifting for you, and you could even see a performance improvement, thanks to not issuing a separate pluck query for every single news story in the collection.
If you need to have those extra attributes there regardless:
You can select them as extra attributes in your NewsStory query:
NewsStory.
includes(:user).
joins(:user).
select([
NewsStory.arel_table[Arel.star],
User.arel_table[:name].as("author_name"),
User.arel_table[:profile_image_url].as("author_avatar"),
]).
where(...) # rest of the query
It looks like you're trying to cache the name and avatar of the user on the NewsStory model, in which case, what you want is this:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
user_for_record = User.find(individual_news_story.user_id)
individual_news_story.author_name = user_for_record.name
individual_news_story.author_avatar = user_for_record.profile_image_url
end
A couple of notes.
I've used find instead of where. find returns a single record identified by it's primary key (id); where returns an array of records. There are definitely more efficient ways to do this -- eager-loading, for one -- but since you're just starting out, I think it's more important to learn the basics before you dig into the advanced stuff to make things more performant.
I've gotten rid of the pluck call, because here again, you're just learning and pluck is a performance optimization useful when you're working with large amounts of data, and if that's what you're doing then activerecord has a batch api you should look into.
I've changed #user_for_record to user_for_record. The # denote instance variables in ruby. Instance variables are shared and accessible from any instance method in an instance of a class. In this case, all you need is a local variable.
How can i remove the last element from an ActiveRecord_Relation in rails?
e.g. if I set:
#drivers = Driver.all
I can add a another Driver object called #new_driver to #drivers by doing:
#drivers << #new_driver
But how can I remove an object from #drivers?
The delete method doesn't seem to work, i.e.
#drivers.delete(0)
You can use the reject! method, this will remove the object from the collection without affecting the db
for example:
driver_to_delete = #driver.first # you need the object that you want removed
#drivers.reject!{|driver| driver == driver_to_delete}
Very late too, but I arrived here looking for a fast answer and finished by thinking by myself ;)
Just to clarify about the different answers and the Rails 6.1 comment on accepted answer:
The OP wanted to remove one entry from a query, but NOT remove it from database, so any answer with delete or destroy is just wrong (this WILL delete data from your database !!).
In Ruby (and therefore Rails) convention, shebang methods (ending with !) tend to alter the given parameter. So reject! would imply modifying the source list ... but an ActiveRecord_Relation is basically just a query, NOT an array of entries !
So you'd have 2 options:
Write your query differently to specifically say you don't want some id:
#drivers.where.not(id: #driver_to_remove) # This still is an ActiveRecord_Relation
Use reject (NO shebang) on your query to transform it into an Array and "manually" remove the entry you don't want:
#drivers.reject{ |driver| driver == #driver_to_remove}
# The `reject` forces the execution of the query in DB and returns an Array)
On a performance point of view, I would personally recommend the first solution as it would be just a little more complex against the DB where the latter implies looping on the whole (eventually large) array.
Late to the question, but just had the same issue and hope this helps someone else.
reject!did not work for ActiveRecord_Relation in Rails 4.2
drop(1) was the solution
In this case #drivers.drop(0) would work to drop the first element of the relation
Since its an array of objects, have you tried to write something like #drivers.delete(#new_driver) or #drivers.delete(id: #new_driver.id) ?
This is the documentation you need:
#group.avatars << Avatar.new
#group.avatars.delete(#group.avatars.last)
--
.destroy
The problem you've got is you're trying to use collection methods on a non-collection object. You'll need to use the .destroy ActiveRecord method to get rid of the record from the database (and consequently the collection):
#drivers = Driver.all
#drivers.last.destroy
--
Scope
.delete will remove the record from the DB
If you want to pull specific elements from the db to populate the #drivers object, you'll need to use a scope:
#app/models/driver.rb
Class Driver < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :your_scope, -> { where column: "value" }
end
This will allow you to call:
#app/controllers/drivers_controller.rb
def index
#drivers = Driver.your_scope
end
I think you're getting the MVC programming pattern confused - data manipulation is meant to happen in the model, not the controller
As stated above, reject! doesn't work in Rails 4.2, but delete does, so #drivers.delete(#new_driver) works, and more generally:
#drivers.delete(Driver.where(your condition))
Program.where(name: "xxyyzz123") will return a collection, even if there's just one record that matches which forces me to do ugly things like:
puts Program.where(name: "xxyyzz123").first.age
or
puts Program.where(name: "xxyyzz123")[0].age
When I know for sure only one record will match, is there a shorter way to grab a property from that one record?
ActiveRecord's dynamic attribute-based finders (find_by_x) allow you to select the first record that matches in your database. For example:
Program.find_by_name('xxyyzz123')
will return the first record with name = 'xxyyzz123'
Note that these finders are 'mildly deprecated' in Rails 4. Using
Program.find_by(name: 'xxyyzz123")
achieves the same thing and may make it easier when needing to update to the next version of Rails if they ever remove the former's functionality.
See ActiveRecord::Base in the API for more.
Yes, you will have to access that with Program.where(name: "xxyyzz123").first.age, however, in Rails 3, it is usually recommended to do that type of query with: Program.find_by_name('xxyyzz123').age.
Rails 4 deprecates the above syntax and recommends you to use the following syntax for that:
Program.find_by(name: 'xxyyzz123')
If you have multiple conditions, then simply : Program.find_by(name: 'xxyyzz123', lang: 'ruby')
Behind the scene, it does the same tomfoolery - where clause and returns first object.
Recently I've been using ModelName.where(nil) in certain situations when I might use ModelName.all.
The difference between the two is that the former returns an ActiveRecord Relation, whereas the latter returns an array. I can chain queries off the former, but not the latter. I'm not pleased that I lose the self-documenting nature of ModelName.all though.
Is there some method like ModelName.all that returns an AR Relation and maintains self-documentation?
ModelName.scoped will give you an AR relation with the default scope, ModelName.unscoped will give the the AR relation without the default scope.
In that case you can use ModelName as you can't use all bcz it returns array.
E.g.
a = ModelName
a = a.active # here active is scope
a = a.where(:deleted => false)
a = a.all
Well I normally use
Model.find(:all, :conditions=>whatever, :order=>whatever,:limit=>whatever)
In your case maybe Model.find(:all) will do the trick for you
Following Problem:
I need something like an empty scope. Which means that this scope is emtpy, but responds to all methods a scope usually responds to.
I'm currently using a little dirty hack. I simply supply "1=0" as conditions. I find this realy ugly, since it hits the database. Simply returning an empty array won't work, since the result must respond to the scoped methods.
Is there a better existing solution for this or will I need to code this myself?
Maybe some example code could help explain what i need:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
named_scope :admins, :conditions => {:admin => true }
named_scope :none_dirty, :conditions => "1=0" # this scope is always empty
def none_broken
[]
end
def self.sum_score # okay, a bit simple, but a method like this should work!
total = 0
self.all.each do |user|
total += user.score
end
return total
end
end
User.admin.sum_score # the score i want to know
User.none_drity.sum_score # works, but hits the db
User.none_broken.sum_score # ...error, since it doesn't respond to sum_score
Rails 4 introduces the none scope.
It is to be used in instances where you have a method which returns a relation, but there is a condition in which you do not want the database to be queried.
If you want a scope to return an unaltered scope use all:
No longer will a call to Model.all execute a query immediately and return an array of records. In Rails 4, calls to Model.all is equivalent to now deprecated Model.scoped. This means that more relations can be chained to Model.all and the result will be lazily evaluated.
User.where('false')
returns an ActiveRecord::Relation with zero elements, that is a chain-able scope that won't hit the database until you actually try to access one of its elements. This is similar to PhilT's solution with ('1=0') but a little more elegant.
Sorry User.scoped is not what you want. As commented this returns everything. Should have paid more attention to the question.
I've seen where('1 = 0') suggested before and Rails should probably cache it as well.
Also, where('1 = 0') won't hit the database until you do .all, .each, or one of the calculations methods.
I thing you need User.scoped({})
How about User.where(id: nil) ?
Or User.where(_id: nil) for mongoid.
The thing you are looking for does not exist. You could implement something like this by monky patching the find method. Yet, this would be an overkill, so I recomend keeping this unless it's performance critical.
Looking at your example code indicates you may not know about aggregated queries in SQL which are exposed as calculations methods in Rails:
User.sum(:score) will give you the sum of all users' scores
Take a look at Rails Guides for more info:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#sum