I'm a newbie and I'm wondering if my app is going to fail is a near future because I don't understand all subtleties of Rails. So I prefer to ask you :-)
I have a User and a Product model, and I want to create a method that could be used like that :
#user.take!(product)
So I wrote in my User model the following line :
def take!(product)
product.owner = self
end
But if I do that in the private section of my model, it doesn't work. And if I do that in the public section, I don't know if it's recommended. I'm asking myself if it would be better to do something like that in a controller, or in a helper...
Can you enlighten me ?
Writing public methods is fine if they need to be public, it's not a hanging offence or anything like that. The method you describe shouldn't be on the user though - there's no need to put product logic inside the user model, and it's definitely bad to change the product by passing it into a user method. It's also a very short method and so there isn't really very much to be gained by putting it into a method - it just means that if I see take! then I have to go and find where it's defined in order to understand it. You should also only use ! at the end of methods that either might raise an exception or alter the object they are called on.
Putting this logic in the controller would be fine and much clearer, but in general there's nothing wrong with public methods if they can't be private.
Related
I have Model_a, model_a_controller and Model_b. I have a method in model_b that I would like to call in model_a_controller. But I am not sure what the best practice for doing so would be. This is my method right now:
def method
id = Model_b.method
.... some other stuff
end
Im calling the method directly from the model but is it better rails practice to perhaps make an instance of the model and then call the method from that instance? Something like
def method
#model_b = Model_b
id = #model_b.method
.... some other stuff
end
Im not quite sure what the best practice would be or if my alternative would make sense; Any pointers are welcome.
It depends what you'd like to achieve and what's the context. I can only answer with some quick guiding questions that might be a start point for your own decision making.
I see two different threads in you question:
Class method vs instance method
For this it doesn't matter where you call the method_b. It's about its logic and responsibility. What does this method suppose to do? Do you need a Model B instance (e.g. #instance_B.valid?)? Or is it a behaviour related to class only or all Model B instances (e.g. Model_B.count)? Think about the outcome of this method and what you need to achieve it.
Where to call the method_b
As a rule of thumb, a good practice in rails is to keep skinny controller.
Is there any relationship between model A and model B? Then probably it's better to call the method_b in the model A. Maybe you should consider adding the service layer for that?
https://www.toptal.com/ruby-on-rails/rails-service-objects-tutorial
Consider relationships between models and the controller actions.
There are no strict rules that always work. It depends on the business context, the app design and direction of the development.
If you provide more specific example, then we can give more specific advice and discuss pros & cons of different approaches.
Maybe you can create a service object like this:
In app, create a folder services(app/services)
Inside services folder you can organize all the services for your project.
services/model_b_service/model_b_method.rb
module ModelBService
class ModelBMethod
def initialize
end
def call
.. logic goes here
end
end
So, in your controller:
def method
id = ModelBService::ModelBMethod.new.call
.... some other stuff
end
If you want to pass arguments just ModelBService::ModelBMethod.new(args).call and fetch in initialize method
I have a basic "best practice" question about controllers and instance variables.
Say you have an instance variable in anew or update action in a controller, is it ok to modify that instance variable via a private method in the controller? Or should the method exist in the model?
e.g. in this example below, I need to loop through the attributes of an instance variable, and add or remove something. For example, if I am using nested attributes 3 layers deep and have to remove certain attributes, change them and then add them back in. I know this may seem strange, but assume it is necessary.
def new
#some_thing = SomeThing.new(:some_params)
do_something_to_inst_var # method call
#some_thing.save
end
private
def do_something_to_inst_var
#some_thing.addresses.each do |address|
# modify it in some way
end
end
Or is this bad practice? Should this be a method in the model and should be called like:
#some_thing.do_something_to_inst_var
OR
should we explicitly pass the instance variable to the method like:
def new
#some_thing = SomeThing.new(:some_params)
do_something_to_inst_var(#some_thing) # method call
#some_thing.save
end
private
def do_something_to_inst_var(some_thing)
some_thing.addresses.each do |addresses|
# modify it in some way
end
end
I'm looking for some clarity here, with an example if possible. I'm still learning and trying to improve and I didn't find an answer by searching.
Rails applications should have "thin controllers" and "fat models" for a couple of reasons:
Each object should handle only its own responsibilities. A controller should just be about connecting the web, the the model and the view, which thanks to Rails doesn't take much code. If a controller method refers repeatedly to methods of the same model, it's incorrectly taking on model responsibilities; we say that it's not cohesive or that it has "Feature Envy". It is more likely that if the model changes the controller will have to change in parallel.
It's easier to test models than to test controllers.
Fix it by writing a method in the model that does the model-specific work and call it in the controller (your second option). (Eventually your model will get too fat and you'll have to break it up too, but that's another story.) For example:
class SomeThingsController
def new
#some_thing = SomeThing.new(:some_params)
#some_thing.do_something # method call
#some_thing.save
end
end
class SomeThing
def do_something
addresses.each do |address|
# modify it in some way
end
end
end
Regarding instance variables.
Define them only if necessary. Presumably the one in your example is needed for the view.
Assuming an instance variable is justified at all, there's no reason not to refer to it in private methods of the class that contains it. That's what they're for. So your first option (referring directly to the instance variable) is a bit better than your third option (passing it in). But, as discussed above, extracting a model method is better than both of the other two options.
In my opinion Modifying #instance_vars from private method is okay if your controller is just 100 lines long.
Imagine a scenario where there are 500 LOC in your controller and after a struggle of a couple of hours you found out that the #intance_var is being modified by some private method.
Helpful tips:
create small private methods with single responsibility
put ! at the end of method_name! indicating that it modifies something. Specially this is helpful when you see my_private_method!, ! makes you realize that its modifying something.
lets not put code in controller that do not belong here.
There is one more option:
In Controller:
def new
#some_thing = SomeThing.new(:some_params)
#some_thing_modified = #some_thing.modify_somehow(params)
#some_thing_modified.save
end
In SomeThing Model:
def modify_somehow(params)
result = self.clone
# ... modify result ...
return result
end
Because modify_somehow is now pure function (assuming you don't do anything in ... modify result ... part, that makes it impure), what you gain here is Referential transparency. Main benefit of referential transparency is that you can determine what function/method invocation will do, only by looking at its arguments, and get result of its work only via return value, and not via side effects. This makes your code more predictable, which in turn makes it easier to understand and debug.
There are of course disadvantages: Because you create new object this option can be less performant, it's also more verbose than its alternatives.
Functional programming concepts, like referential transparency, are not very popular in Rails community (probably because of how OO-centric Ruby is). But referential transparency is there if you want it, with its pros and cons.
I'm relatively new to rails, but I've made a few basic CRUD apps. However, this time, I'm making something different, and I'm not sure how to organize it.
It's essentially a one page app. The user fills out a form, and the code does some calculations based on those values. I have all the code written, but it's all just sitting in the controller. I'm assuming that this isn't correct.
There are two parts:
Using an external API, 2 constant arrays are generated. I need these variables to be global, or at least accessible for the calculator function.
I have a function that takes some inputs from the form that also calls other functions. A simplified version is below. I could put all the code into one function if that's necessary. I have them separate just so that the code is more readable.
def calc(input)
func1(input)
func2(input)
# do more stuff
return answer #I need to show this in the view
end
def func1(a)
end
def func2(b)
end
So, where should I put each part of this code?
To make your controllers thin, you can keep business logic at Service Objects.
Just create "services" directory at "app", add there some class like "user_searcher.rb".
And call it in the controller, passing all necessary data.
Such technique will help you to isolate business logic and incapsulate it in separate class.
BTW read this article http://blog.codeclimate.com/blog/2012/10/17/7-ways-to-decompose-fat-activerecord-models/
I think, from what I understand of you question, is this code should be placed in the helper classes. If you have dedicated class for this calculation, you can use class attributes to access array to access anywhere in the class or declare them constant, in case they are constant.
I don't think making global is a good practice, just because this is needed in some other function, instead return that variable and pass them as parameter where they are needed.
If the end_user cannot access the source code of the app, why we still need to make some methods private?
I'm reading the Pragmatic Agile Web Development with Rails and I couldn't understand why we need to make the following method private (even after reading the explanation):
private
def current_cart Cart.find(session[:cart_id])
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound
cart = Cart.create
session[:cart_id] = cart.id
cart
end
end
It says that it will never allow Rails to make it available as an action, but as a coder, why would I ever do that myself?
As you say there may be no external reason to make it private. However, it also prevents you — or somebody else using your code — from accidentally making use of the method where you're not supposed to.
See it as a sanity check on your own future behaviour if you will.
It aims to encourage good practices and good code.
The idea is that you have two separate parts to your code:
"Above the line" (Public). This is the interface to the rest of the world. This is the API, where calls are made when using instances of the object. Once created, you know that THIS is the area where changes can affect current usages of the code.
"Below the line (Private). This is where detailed logic resides. This code can be changed and refactored freely without any affect to the public interface.
It may help guide your test writing
Private methods may or may not be (unit) tested.
Public methods are more encouraging of both unit and integrated tests as the fact that is is public means that it is serving as the public face for that code and as it is public it might be called from any other point in the future, so having good tests to make sure it continues to work as advertised is essential.
It may help with security as you have greater control who calls private methods (i.e. only public methods in the same class calling them).
It may help reduce name collisions as you have less names in the public space.
End user might not be able to access your code but someone else in your team can definitely access it and they might change it.
The other benefit of encapsulation is that it allows one class ("server") to make a contract with another class ("client") to provide some service with only a very few things being required to be known about the "server" class such as method signature and return type. The benefit is only realized if the contract of what is required and what is returned remains the same. So, in your example, there is no benefit since the contract was broken by Class A.
Instead of class A changing int type to float, class A should create another new variable of type float for other classes to use so that class B is not "broken" or that contract is not broken between them. Class C could refer to new float variable and Class B could still refer to old int variable and everyone is happy. Better yet, methods would used to retrieve values such as: "getUsersAddress" and "getUSersPhoneNumber" depending on what was wanted.
The real benefit of good encapsulation is that Class A can be completely re-written from top to bottom and as long as the contract is honored as to what Class A is expected to do(have methods "getUsersAddress" and "getUSersPhoneNumber"), then everything in Class B and C works the same. Think carefully about what is exposed and how it is exposed. Things that will change often and break other classes need to be considered carefully before exposing. Good encapsulation means hiding things that are expected to change often so to avoid breaking other classes.
It says that it will never allow Rails to make it available as an action,
Hmm, is this in a Rails Conroller class? And is the book you are working through written for Rails 2.x?
In Rails 2.x, by default any public method in a Controller can be triggered by someone accessing the url /name_of_controller/name_of_method .
But there are some methods in your controller that you don't want anyone on the web to trigger, they weren't intended as 'action methods'. So in Rails 2.x, you mark those as protected or private, something not public. "action method" means a method you intend to be directly triggered via a URL.
In Rails 3.x, routing has generally changed such that only certain methods you explicitly route to are available to be triggered via a URL. However, it might still make sense to mark non-action-methods in a Controller as protected or private so:
It's more clear from skimming the source which methods are action methods and which aren't
As a precaution in case someone changes the routing in such a way that would allow a URL to trigger those methods not intended as action methods
Or for general reasons of code organization that other answers mention, that are not specific to Rails controller classes.
There are several reasons as mentioned above. The interesting thing about this encapsulation in ruby is that it can be violated.
See the "send" method and its brother "public_send".
And for a very common metaprogramming technique that uses this method see:
dynamic finders
My base controller has:
[Authorize(Roles = "sys_admin")]
I want to have one action in a controller that's different and is available to "user" and "sys_admin". Can I override and how do I do that?
Also any suggestions on what else I could put in a base controller that might make my coding simpler. For example what's in your base controllers?
Anything that you use in every controller - attributes, methods, properties, etc. The same stuff you would put in any base class.
Just to add to the discussion, I have a few extra utility methods in my shared controller. I write a bunch of little apps for corporate use, so I try to repeat code as little as possible here.
getContext(): Puts together an object containing user info like IP, hostname, id, etc. for logging purposes.
Shared Views/Partials such as Error, Default, and Redirect (used for redirecting ajax requests).
RedirectToError(): I created this to use similar to RedirectToAction. I load up an ErrorObject with info, throw it in session, and return a Redirect to my Error page.
General logging and tracing methods so I can quickly spit out information to a file.
I override OnActionExecuting and check if my session is still valid and redirect to login if its not. Probably better with attributes...went with quick and dirty. Also trace Url.PathAndQuery for debugging here.
Any data access actions that I would use across views with ajax, like loading up a list of departments.
OnException is overridden, as well.
That's what I got in mine so far.
In my base controllers I actually put some utility method ([NonAction]) collected over time. I prefer to add functionalities to Controllers by decorating with Attributes if possible.
Lately my base controller has:
some Properties for retrieving information about the current user (my app
specific informations, not the User.Identity stuffs)
A simple protected override void OnException(ExceptionContext
filterContext); override for at least logging unhandled exception and have
some sort of automatic notifications
A bunch of Cookies related methods (WebForms auth cookies management
for example)
A bunch of usefull standard attributes (usually [Authorize], [HandleError], [OutputCache]) in its declaration.
some standard method for preparing widely used json data types on the fly (when possible I prefer to have a standard json object with ErrorCode, ErrorMessage and a UserData).
With time you'll find more and more utilities to keep with your controllers, try to keep an assembly with the simpler ones (avoiding heavy dependencies), will come handy with your next MVC projects. (the same goes for Helpers and to some degree also for EditorTemplates).
For the Authorize Attribute part, well, I think the cleanest way is to write your own AuthorizeAttribute class, specifically a NonAuthorizeAttribute. I think I've also seen it somewhere on SO.
You can also play with the Order Property of the default AuthorizeAttribute - put different Order in BaseController and in Action, in order to have Action's one executed first, but I cannot recall if you can actually break the Attributes processing chain.
Regards,
M.
We cant tell you what you need in your base controller, you have to reveal these kind of thing as you implement your controllers and see repeating code.. Dont hesitate to refactor these things to your BaseController, and keep in mind, that maybe you should have 2 or more BaseControllers, or 2-layer hierarchy of BaseControllers.
I give you two tips, what i always have in my BaseController :
super-useful helper method for interface-based model binding :
protected T Bind<T, U>()
where T : U, new()
where U : class
{
T model = new T();
TryUpdateModel<U>(model);
return model;
}
You can then have multiple "sets" of properties you want to bind in different scenarios implemented as interfaces, and simple model bind your object (even existing object, from DB) with incoming values.
2.If you use custom AcionResults (maybe your specific Json builders etc.), make your "shortcuts" methods in BaseController. Same thing as View() method is shortcut for return new ViewResult(...)
To add more to the good responses already here -
caching caching caching caching
See
Disable browser cache for entire ASP.NET website