I have some problems understanding the has_one relation.
I have two models Planning and Sport. A Planning is concerned by one Sport and a Sport can be found in many Plannings. So I defined my Planning this way:
class Planning
...
has_one :sport
...
end
And I didn't add anything in Sport regarding the Planning.
In my mind, this would allow me to access planning.sport but I don't mind if I can't find sport.plannings (which makes no sense).
The problem is that when I try to create a new Planning using my ActiveAdmin interface, I have the following error as soon as I try to access the plannings/new page:
undefined method `planning_id' for #<Planning:0x30d8570>
What I understand is that it checks in Sport that a planning_id exists, but my understanding was that there was just a sport_id in the Planning, not the opposite...
What did I do wrong? Do I need to use an intermediary model? Is this jsut linked to ActiveAdmin?
Thanks!
What you need is
class Planning
...
belongs_to :sport
...
end
class Sport
has_many: plannings
end
You can think of it like, whoever has the foreign key is like the child. So here planning has the foreign key of sport. So it is a child of Sport and it belongs to sport.
Related
Here are my simplified models
class Offer < ApplicationRecord
has_many :rooms
end
class Room < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :offer
end
class Kitchen < Room
end
I'm using STI for Kitchen, cause it seemed the right way to express what I wanted to do (I'm probably wrong).
I want to be able to create an Offer with Rooms in it. I have 'regular' rooms that are instances of Room directly, and more specified rooms such as a Kitchen which can have an extra attribute.
I'm using cocoon to create nested form, it works great to create an offer and add regular rooms. But how can I add kitchens ?
Maybe it's an architecture issue more than an implementation issue. How would you manage to do something like this ?
One solution would be to add JSONB column data to your rooms table. Then you can use jsonb_accessor gem to elegantly manage STI.
I assume you have type column already so you can do something like:
Kitchen.create(offer_id: 1, name: "Great Kitchen", description: "It is great!")
Notice: description would be attribute of JSONB data column. In addition you can create indices for JSONB attributes and even do queries. From my experience, you want to keep JSONB as place to store additional info and less for heavy queries.
I hope this helps.
I'm trying to build a student portal in Rails 3, but I'm having some problem.
The idea is to have a users table that contains all basic data for a given person. See the UML/E-R below for example attributes.
A user can be both an Assistant and a Student at the same time.
Assistant and Student should inherit from User.
The idea was to inherit directly from the User, like this.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
# ...
def awesome?
[true, false].sample
end
# ...
end
class Student < User
has_one :student
has_many :registered_courses, through: :students
end
Student.new.awesome?
This makes the relations in the student model very strange.
has_many :registered_courses, through: :students
I want to be able to do something like this in the end.
student.full_name
student.pin_code
student.registered_courses
One solution would be to implementing the method by hand, like this
class Student < User
has_one :student
def pin_number
student.pin_number
end
end
But it looks really strange to refer to a student object inside the student model.
Is there a clearer, better way of doing this?
Here is an example UML/E-R. I've tried to keep this example clean by removing non relevant attributes. That is why there are so few attributes in the registered course entity.
STI is not a good choice for this the way that you have articulated it here, since users can be both students and assistants. When you are using STI, you generally add a type column to specify which subclass the record really belongs to. If both Student and Assistant inherit from User, then that really isn't an option, since you'd be forced to create duplicate User records for someone who is both an Assistant and a Student.
I think you'd be better off simply having Student and Assistant rows that belong_to a Student, and then delegating the elements that are contained in User back to the User object.
I feel like Inheritance is a bad move here. If you're going to have STI like this it HAS to be one or the other.
Instead throw all your logic into the User model, all your data is there anyway. Plus since Student & Assistant aren't mutually exclusive there shouldn't be any methods that will override each other.
Why not STI?
STI is mainly meant for objects that contain the same data, but does different things with them.
For example, I have a specification that contains multiple processes(ex. build and test). So I have a order that contains processes.
process_1:
order_id: 1
specification: foo
type: build
process_2:
order_id: 1
specification: foo
type: test
In this example the only thing that changes in the data is the type, but because the type changes I know what process to perform from the specification.
I have a container class I need to name, today it is called "EnrollmentApplication". It is a container of one type of application.
I've decided to push some of the business logic specific to different types of applications into a delegate associated with the application via a polymorphic relationship, to allow support for different types of applications. I'm struggling with a good name for the class and the relationship:
today:
EnrollmentApplication and applicationable
It's no longer just an application, but a collection of tasks and steps , kind of a workflow.
Portfolio and portfoliable....
ApplicationContainer and containable....
thanks
Joel
If the name of your class is called Enrollment then the following could work:
class Enrollment < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :enrollment_applications
has_many :enrollments, :through => :enrollment_applications
end
Then you need your join table:
class EnrollmentApplication < Active Record::Base
belongs_to :enrollment
end
I really don't know if this will work because rails might complain about only having one id. I'm gonna try this when I get home to see if you can do this because I am actually setting up and app where user has many users. Anyway, keep us posted on your progress.
I have situation where a single model needs to have three foreign ids. This table has the information which belongs to three models.
e.g. -
Three models - Keyboard, Mouse, Monitor
Now i have fourth model details - which has information about what will happen for any combination like keyboard1, mouse1 and monitor1.
So what should be good design pattern for this ?
Right now what i use is Detail.find_by_keyboard_id_and_mouse_id_and_monitor_id(keyboard1id, mouse1id, monitor1id) #=> Detail1
Which of course is not a best way to go...
I don't think what you have is a bad design. There probably aren't too many options for how this should be implemented, but you should think about how you want to use it. Personally, I wouldn't call the model Detail since it doesn't tell you anything about what the model really is. Something like HardwareConfiguration is more explicit. Maybe too lengthy, but you could shorten it to HardwareConfig or Configuration, depending on your taste.
This model should have an id and the three foreign keys. You should add database indexes to each foreign key field as well.
class Detail < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :keyboard
belongs_to :mouse
belongs_to :monitor
end
Then each hardware model would have_many :details like:
class Keyboard < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :details
end
You could look up the detail combo by its ID, or any combination of foreign keys.
Detail.find(id)
Detail.find_all_by_keyboard_id(keyboard_id)
It is easy to associate a model to another using has_many/belongs_to methods. Let's suppose the following models:
class Movie < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :actors
end
So, I can find the actors from a given movie instance. But now, given an actor instance obtained through the actors association, I'd like to find the movie instance related in the association. Some method like 'associated_instance' or 'back_association' that would make the following statement return true:
movie_instance.actors[0].**associated_instance** == movie_instance
Is there any built in way to do that?
Thanks
Assuming you have your relationships correctly defined, I'm guessing your encountering the situation where you want to effectively traverse an association but then traverse backwards eg.
movie.actors.movie
With a HABTM relationship rails doesn't build the .movie method for you on the actors collection, but what you can do is extend the association to include such a method:
class Movie < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :actors do
def movie
proxy_owner
end
end
end
There is an excellent guide on association extensions by Mike Gunderloy on the Rails Guides site: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#association-extensions
Hope I've stabbed at this question in the right direction :)
Yes you can do what you want using
movie_instance.actors[0].movie
The question still remains why you would want to do this as you already have it
...given an actor instance obtained
through the actors association...
If you're using the actors association, you already have the movie object. What is the problem that you're trying to solve here?
My suspicion is that if we finally get to the bottom of what you're trying to accomplish, the answer is going to be "read the docs on 'has_and_belongs_to_many' and/or 'has_many :through'."
Edit:
I just now noticed your clarification below (although movies and plots could be considered many-to-many as well, since they get recycled endlessly).
Assuming that you really are trying to use a many-to-one relationship, is the root of your problem that you forgot the following?
class Plot < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :movie
end