I started working on first small rails project which will in fact get data from database and visualize in jquery datatable. There will be no updates at all. The question is, should I create models for this data and access it through activerecord or it is ok to access it directly through SQL commands in controller ?
You should still make models to keep the controller clean.
Rails pattern is that all data access should be done through the models. You don't necessarily have to have any update/insert logic or even inherit from ActiveRecord, but that's where readers of your code would expect to find the data access.
Furthermore, you will need to pass some sort of object to your views, and it makes the most sense to use a model rather than a throw away temp object. This way you can cleanly change the model and only have one place to update.
For example, say you later need to add a full_name attribute to your report. If you had straight SQL in the controller and you were just passing the query results to the view, you'd have a harder time concatinating first_name and last_name. But with a model, you can just add
def full_name
"#{self.first_name} #{self.last_name}"
end
in one place, and all the controller actions that show that report now have a full_name property.
If you plan to do testing, having a model class makes that a heck of a lot easier as well. You can test the model without having to get the controller involved.
Related
I would like to make sure my code is properly organized/designed according to the following paradigms/patterns:
- Model View Controller
- Rails Convention over Configuration
- Skinny Controller, Fat Model
I have listed them here in the order I think is most important.
My issue
After reading several articles, in particular this one and this one too, I started to move some of the logic in my controllers, to my models.
However, I can't decide whether or not to move my searching logic (explained in depth, later) from the controller to the model, even after reading more posts/articles like these: MVC Thinking, and Model vs. Controller, Separating concerns and many more not listed here.
The scenario
View
Two pages:
1 page contains a text field and submit button which sends the user's input as an argument in params in a POST request to the second page.
The second page simply renders each neatObject in a given array, let's call it #coolList.
Controller
A method, let's call it awesomeSearch, is invoked when the second page receives a POST request. (Thanks to Rails Routing)
awesomeSearch should take the user's input, available as params[:searchString], and work with the NeatObject model to build the #coolList and make that list available for the view to render.
Model
The NeatObject model handles requests from controllers and returns neatObjects back to those controllers.
The NeatObject model defines the relationship between neatObjects and other tables in our database.
Database
These are the attributes that make up each neatObject according to our database:
id - int
description - string
address - string
date_created - timestamp
What's Missing?
How the controller works with the model to get matches for the user's input.
This is the part I am confused about. The logic itself is very simple, but I am not sure which pieces belong in the model, and which pieces belong in the controller.
Should the controller pass the search string to the model, and the model pass back the results?
Should the controller ask the model for all of the neatObjects, then only keep the ones that match?
Is the solution a little of both?
To be able to ask questions about specific bits of the logic, I'll next outline the search process with more detail.
The search logic in depth
The process involves finding neatObjects that match the search string. It would be impossible to move on without defining what we consider matches for neatObjects. To keep things very simple, we will say that:
A neatObject matches a search string if the search string is contained within its description or its address, ignoring case and leading/trailing whitespace.
This definition is not guaranteed to be permanent. There are several things that may change our definition. We may need to test against more attributes than just address and description, perhaps if the database guys add a new important attribute, or the UI guys decide users should be able to search by ID. And of course, the opposite of these scenarios would mean we need to remove an attribute from the list of attributes we are testing. There are many situations that could change our definition of a match. We could even have to add or remove logic, perhaps if it is decided that we should only test the first word in the description attribute, or perhaps if we should no longer ignore case.
Now we know what defines a match and we know that our definition may change. Now we can more concretely define the search process.
Here is an outline of the steps:
Get a reference to all neatObjects
Loop through each neatObject, putting each individual one through the match test
Test passes - add/keep neatObject in results list
Test fails - do not keep neatObject for results
Make results available to the view
I will reference these steps as I show possible implementations.
Implementation
The search functionality can easily be implemented in either the NeatObject model, or the controller serving the view.
Normally, I would just write all of the logic in the controller, but after I learned about the "Skinny controller, Fat model" design, I thought it definitely applied in this situation. This article in particular made me think to reorganize my code, after I saw the author had implemented a "search-like" function in the model. The author's function did not handle user input though, so I was wondering how it should be handled.
This is how I would have written the code before learning about "SCFM":
Search logic in controller:
#searches_controller.rb
#This is the method invoked when second page receives POST request
def search
#neatObjects = NeatObjects.all.to_a
#neatObjects.delete_if {
|neatObject| !matches?(neatObject, params[:searchString])
}
end
def matches?(neatObject, searchString)
if((neatObject.description.downcase.include? searchString.downcase) ||
(neatObject.address.downcase.include? searchString.downcase))
return true
end
return false
end
This method gets its reference to all of the neatObjects (Step 1) by calling .all() on the NeatObject model. It uses the array function delete_if to perform the match test on each neatObject, and only keeps those that pass (Step 2). Step 3 is accomplished automatically automatically since we store our results in an instance variable in the controller which serves the view.
Placing the logic in the controller is very straight-forward, but when considering the "SCFM" design pattern, it seems very illogical.
I've written another option, in which the controller sends the user's input to a function in the model, which will return the the neatObjects which match the input.
Search logic in Model
#NeatObject.rb
def self.get_matches_for(searchString)
all.to_a.delete_if { |neighborhood| !matches?(searchString, neighborhood) }
end
def self.matches?(phrase, neighborhood)
fields = [neighborhood.name, neighborhood.address]
fields.map!(&:downcase)
phrase.downcase!
fields.each do |field|
if (
(phrase.include? field) ||
(field.include? phrase)
)
return true
end
end
return false
end
This method gets the complete list of neatObjects with all() (Step 1). Just like the first method, the model method uses delete_if to remove array elements (neatObjects) that don't meet a certain criteria (passing the match test) (Step 2). In this method, the controller serving the view would call get_matches_for on the NeatObject model, and store the results in an instance variable (Step 3), like this: #neatObjects = NeatObject.get_matches_for( params[:searchString] )
I do think that the model option is cleaner, and slightly more maintanable, but I'll go more in depth in the following section.
Concerns
I can see pros and cons to both the model method and the controller method, but there are things that I'm still unsure about.
When I read over that article I've referenced several times (just like I did here), it was very logical that the model defined a function to return the recently added people.
The controller didn't have to implement the logic to determine if a person had been recently added. It makes sense that the controller shouldn't, because that is dependent on the data itself. There might be a completely different implementation of the "recency" test for messages. The recent people might include people added this week, while recent messages are only those messages sent today.
A controller should just be able to say People.find_recent or Message.find_recent and know it got the correct results.
Is it correct to say the find_recent method could also be modified to take in a time symbol, and return objects for different time periods? Ex - People.find_in_time( :before_this_month ) or Messages.find_in_time( :last_year ). Does that still follow the MVC pattern and Rails convention?
Should a controller be able to find matches for user input with NeatObject.get_matches_for( searchString )?'
I think the matching logic belongs in the model, because there are certain/specific attributes that are used in testing, and those attributes are different depending on the data. We might have different attributes for different tables, and those attributes definitely shouldn't be defined by the controller. I know the controller depends on the model, not the other way around, so the model must define those attributes, even if the rest of the logic is in the controller.
And if the model defines the attributes that are used when searching, why shouldn't it define the entire search function?
The above text explains why I think the model should handle the searching logic and expresses the majority of my questions/concerns, however I do have some opinions favoring the other option.
If the model is concerned only with the data, how can one justify passing user input to it?
If the controller doesn't handle the search logic, it still needs to send the user's input to the model. Does it clean it up before it sends it? (Removing leading/trailing whitespace and downcasing the string.) Does it just send the exact input it got from the user?
Where is the testing done to make sure the input is not malicious?
Some of my biggest questions:
Does the answer for where the logic goes change for each case?
If the search/matching process was simpler, would the code's place change? For example, if the searching was simpler:
If the only attribute being tested was the address and that was unlikely to change, would we just handle the search with the controller?
If we were making an advanced search feature, where the user decided which attributes to include in the search and also controlled some other factors, there would be a lot of user input just to define the arguments to the search function. Would that be too much logic or user input to place in the model?
In conclusion
How can I always be sure that I am putting logic in the right place (MVC)?
For my specific case, with this data and this search/match process, how should I organize the code?
What guidelines can be followed when you find a gray area, or are unsure about where logic belongs?
This is something that varies a lot between cases (each application is different) but here's what I do on my end (large sports app that searches lots of tables from many different places):
start by performing small searches with non-repeating code patterns in the controller (or rarely view)
when it turns out the code is needed in more than one or two action/view I move it to the models
I also move the code to the model when the query complexity goes above the average .find or simple .where
Like this, you don't spam your model with one-time-use methods, and at the same time don't repeat the same code over multiple controllers/actions/views
As many thinks in IT and in life, It depends of the scale and the goal.
Considerations:
1) For design: If you see you are violating DRY in your controllers many times, its probably time to move your logic to models.
2) For performance: Since controllers are loaded more than models, Logic in controller tend to performs worst.
And not less important: Unless you are doing something very trivial, and you db has a few thousands rows, do NOT use db for text search. Instead, use a search engine like Solr, ElasticSearch, Sphinx, etc.
Disclaimer: I really spent time thinking about names of models and variables. If you also do, this question is for you.
I have a Rails project which contains two models: User and Project.
They are connected by the model ProjectsUser, which is a connection model in a many-to-many relationship. This model also holds the role of a user in the given project, along with other attributes such as tier and departments. So this is a has_many :through relationship.
Given this scenario, here is everything that always bothered me on all my rails projects since I started developing on it:
Should I use a ProjectsUserController or better add the relevant actions on UserController and ProjectController? At some point, I want to assign users to a project, or even changing the role of a user in a given project. Is it a better practice to leave those actions on the connection controller, or use the model controllers?
Should I write a method to get the role of a user for a given project? This is basically if I should have a method User#role_for(project) or not. Since this method basically is getting the information from the projects_user object it could make more sense to always let this explicity on the code, since most of the times I'll have the project and the user, but not the projects_user. Is this line of thinking correct, or maybe the problem is that I'm should have more project_user on my code than I really do? Are there good caveats for this?
Should I try to rename my table to a non-standard name if it is not obvious? Ok, I got that if I have the models User and NewsSite I should use has_many :subscriptions, but the thing is that naming those models in real life cases are usually harder, by my experience. When the name ends up not being that obvious (for exemple, in my case, maybe project_participation as #wonderingtomato suggested) is for the best, or in those cases it is better to fall back to the ProjectsUser approach?
One extra cookie for pointing beautiful open source Rails code, or by book indications that might help with my kind of questions.
I would use a specific controller. Even if now the interaction sounds simple, you can't know if in the future you'll need to add more advanced features.
I've been handling these kind of relationships in several projects, and using a controller for the join model has always paid off.
You can structure it this way, for example:
index should expect a params[:project_id], so that you can display only the index of users for a specific project.
create is where you add new users, that is where you create new join models.
update is to modify a value on an existing join model, for example when you want to update the role of a user in a project.
destroy is where you remove users from the project, that is where you delete the corresponding join models.
You might not need a show and edit actions, if you decide to manage everything in the index view.
Also, I'd suggest to choose a different name. Rails relies heavily on naming conventions, and projects_users is the default name for the join_table you would use with a has_and_belongs_to_many association. In theory you can use it for an independent model (and a has_many through:), but it's not immediately clear and you might break something. In addiction, it will confuse the hell out of any new programmer that could join the project in the future (personal experience).
What about calling the model something like project_participation?
If you haven't built a lot of functionality yet, and don't have yet that table in production, changing it now will save you a lot of headaches in the future.
update
1) I stand by what I said earlier: your join model is a full fledged record, it holds state, can be fetched, modified (by the user) and destroyed.
A dedicated controller is the way to go. Also, this controller should handle all the operations that modify the join model, that is that alter its properties.
2) You can define User#role_for(project), just remember that it should properly handle the situation where the user is not participating to the project.
You can also make it explicit with something like:
#user.project_participations.where(project_id: #project.id).first.try(:role)
# or...
ProjectParticipation.find_by(project_id: #project.id, user_id: #user.id).try(:role)
But I'd say that encapsulating this logic in a method (on one of the two models) would be better.
3) You are already using a non standard name for your table. What I mean is that it's the default name for a different kind of association (has_and_belongs_to_many), not the one you are using (has_many through:).
Ask yourself this: is the table backing an actual model? If yes, that model represents something in the real world, and thus should have an appropriate name. If, on the other hand, the table is not backing a model (e.g. it's a join table), then you should combine the names of the tables (models) it's joining.
In my mind, REST doesn't always have to map directly to DB records. A conceptual resource here is the association of Projects to Users. Implementation would be different depending on your persistence layer, but a RESTful API would be standard.
Convention over Configuration in Rails is a great helper, but it isn't necessarily applicable to every case 100% of the way through the stack. There doesn't need to be a 1-to-1 mapping between controllers, models, and their respective names. At the app-level, particularly, I want my routes/controllers to represent the public view of the API, not the internal implementation details of the persistence and domain layers.
You might have a UserProjectsController which you can perform CRUD on to add/remove project associations to users, and it will do the appropriate record manipulation without being overly bound to the DB implementation. Note the naming, where the route might be /user/:id/projects, so it's clear you are manipulating not Users or Projects, but their associations.
I think thinking about this sort of thing (both before and after the fact) is what leads to better designs.
I too start with the model and think about the application structurally. The next step in my oppinion is to build the user interface to make sense based on what makes it easy and useful for the user (spending more effort on things that matter more). So if it makes sense for the user to separately edit the ProjectsUser objects then the ProjectsUsersController is the way to go. More likely editing the join model objects as part of the Project (or User depending on the structure of you app) will be a better fit for the user. In that case using a nested form and editing via the controller (and model) that's the main model referenced by the form is better. The controller really lives to serve the UI, so decisions about it should be dependent on the UI.
Yes, if it makes your code simpler or more readable. If you use role more than once I suspect it will.
I would actually name that model something like Member, or ProjectMember (or Membership). It defines a relationship between a user and a project, so its name should reflect what relationship that is. In the occasions where such a name is too unwieldly or too hard to define then falling back to something like ProjectUser is reasonable (but not ProjectsUser). But I definitely like finding a more meaningful name when possible.
I followed this examples http://framework.zend.com/manual/2.2/en/user-guide/database-and-models.html to create a model and a way to save it to a database.
But I don't like the idea of using the AlubumTable-class in my controller as I think this creates too much dependencies. I just want to add the save(), fetchAll(), etc. methods to my model so that I don't have to care about how to save my models inside my controller.
If I want to change the way my models get stored e.g. from a database to a REST-service I would have to rewrite every part of my controller where I get or store models instead of just changing the save() etc. methods in my model.
Are there any tutorials for my way or is this just a stupid idea? :)
The concern you have is actually OK, but you have to realize that the AlbumTable is nothing but a layer between your Controller and the Database. The AlbumTable actually is the one thing with the dependency, not the controller.
The Controller will always need some sort of "Service" or "Gateway" (which would be AlbumTable) to get access to the Data from the DB.
Also i do not understand what you mean by "i want to change the way my models get stored" - You should always store the MODEL into your Service. In the given example the Model is Album and the Service is AlbumTable. No matter where the data comes from - REST, RPC, "normal HTTP", you would always store the Album and not some ArrayData or whatnot. You'd rather try to implement a function inside your model like exchangeArray(), exchangeJson().
You may want to make your "problem" more clear to us...
I'm starting to use Redis, and first thing my code is not too DRY, and was going to consolidate it in the application.rb and controller. Is this the best way to go, or should I make a new Class called Redis, and have all the logic in there?
My models are currently Customers, Orders, Products, and I'm using a lot of counters.
You will probably need a combination of new and existing model classes.
In many cases you can just drop the model used by the view directly into the datastore, which saves repetition. However, there will always be some places where the needs of the view and the datastore are different.
For example a property that appears as a list of values in the view may need to be stored as a separate set key rather than serialized with the other properties of the model.
I recently was trying to add errors.add_to_base code in the middle of some model logic and was wondering why it wasn't showing up in my view that was iterating over all errors. I then ran across this e-mail which explains why: http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk/browse_thread/thread/e045ec1dead1ff06?pli=1
The question is then, how does one add errors with add_to_base if it doesn't make sense to put them into a validate method? I have some complex logic. The model needs to talk to a has_many relationship which has its own relationships that go through a myriad of conditionals to figure out if a request makes sense. It's nothing that can be tied to a validate method easily.
The one thing that I can do is create an instance variable and push all errors as strings to it while I iterate through my complex logic. After that I can run validate against the array and push those errors to the base object. Seems kind of lame though and not the Rails way of doing things.
Is the bottom line in the Rails community that complex logic, even when the logic spans multiple models, has to be in one particular models validate method? How is it handled when the validation is entirely complex and can span multiple models?
I don't understand why it doesn't make sense to put it into validations. For sure this what you want to do should be in a model, so you have to put it in some method inside the model. Then just add:
validate :my_method
and that's all. Of course if my_method gets too complicated, then split it in some logical sub methods.
If you have many related objects then you should put all validations that belongs to that objects in that objects models and when you try to save "parent" object, "child" objects will be also validated with their validations.