I have a number of these in my controller:
def ups
#ups ||= Shipper::Ups.new(
ENV['UPS_ACCESS_KEY'],
ENV['UPS_PASSWORD'],
ENV['UPS_USERNAME'],
ENV['UPS_ACCOUNT']
)
end
And then I have this block that gets called:
def type(number, carrier)
case carrier.slug
when 'ups'
number_details = ups.track(number)
when 'fedex'
number_details = fedex.track(number)
when 'usps'
number_details = usps.track(number)
end
return number_details
end
But seems I could refactor that quite a bit if I could take the carrier.slug and prepend it to the lines like ups.track(number).
Is there a way to do that?
you can use send to do this but before that we need to make sure that you have the right carrier slug
if %w[ups fedex usps].include?(carrier.slug)
send(carrier.slug).track(number)
end
Related
In my app that I am building to learn Rails and Ruby, I have below iteration/loop which is not functioning as it should.
What am I trying to achieve?
I am trying to find the business partner (within only the active once (uses a scope)) where the value of the field business_partner.bank_account is contained in the field self_extracted_data and then set the business partner found as self.sender (self here is a Document).
So once a match is found, I want to end the loop. A case exists where no match is found and sender = nil so a user needs to set it manually.
What happens now, is that on which ever record of the object I save (it is called as a callback before_save), it uses the last identified business partner as sender and the method does not execute again.
Current code:
def set_sender
BusinessPartner.active.where.not(id: self.receiver_id).each do |business_partner|
bp_bank_account = business_partner.bank_account.gsub(/\s+/, '')
rgx = /(?<!\w)(#{Regexp.escape(bp_bank_account)})?(?!\w)/
if self.extracted_data.gsub(/\s+/, '') =~ rgx
self.sender = business_partner
else
self.sender = nil
end
end
end
Thanks for helping me understand how to do this kind of case.
p.s. have the pickaxe book here yet this is so much that some help / guidance would be great. The regex works.
Using feedback from #moveson, this code works:
def match_with_extracted_data?(rgx_to_match)
extracted_data.gsub(/\s+/, '') =~ rgx_to_match
end
def set_sender
self.sender_id = matching_business_partner.try(:id) #unless self.sender.id.present? # Returns nil if no matching_business_partner exists
end
def matching_business_partner
BusinessPartner.active.excluding_receiver(receiver_id).find { |business_partner| sender_matches?(business_partner) }
end
def sender_matches?(business_partner)
rgx_registrations = /(#{Regexp.escape(business_partner.bank_account.gsub(/\s+/, ''))})|(#{Regexp.escape(business_partner.registration.gsub(/\s+/, ''))})|(#{Regexp.escape(business_partner.vat_id.gsub(/\s+/, ''))})/
match_with_extracted_data?(rgx_registrations)
end
In Ruby you generally want to avoid loops and #each and long, procedural methods in favor of Enumerable iterators like #map, #find, and #select, and short, descriptive methods that each do a single job. Without knowing more about your project I can't be sure exactly what will work, but I think you want something like this:
# /models/document.rb
class Document < ActiveRecord::Base
def set_sender
self.sender = matching_business_partner.try(:id) || BusinessPartner.active.default.id
end
def matching_business_partners
other_business_partners.select { |business_partner| account_matches?(business_partner) }
end
def matching_business_partner
matching_business_partners.first
end
def other_business_partners
BusinessPartner.excluding_receiver_id(receiver_id)
end
def account_matches?(business_partner)
rgx = /(?<!\w)(#{Regexp.escape(business_partner.stripped_bank_account)})?(?!\w)/
data_matches_bank_account?(rgx)
end
def data_matches_bank_account?(rgx)
extracted_data.gsub(/\s+/, '') =~ rgx
end
end
# /models/business_partner.rb
class BusinessPartner < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :excluding_receiver_id, -> (receiver_id) { where.not(id: receiver_id) }
def stripped_bank_account
bank_account.gsub(/\s+/, '')
end
end
Note that I am assigning an integer id, rather than an ActiveRecord object, to self.sender. I think that's what you want.
I didn't try to mess with the database relations here, but it does seem like Document could include a belongs_to :business_partner, which would give you the benefit of Rails methods to help you find one from the other.
EDIT: Added Document#matching_business_partners method and changed Document#set_sender method to return nil if no matching_business_partner exists.
EDIT: Added BusinessPartner.active.default.id as the return value if no matching_business_partner exists.
I have approx 11 functions that look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_acceptance?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
def pending_start(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_start?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
The iteration is always the same, but next unless conditions are different. In case you wonder: it's next unless and ; in it because RuboCop was complaining about it. Is there a solution to implement it better? I hate this spaghetti code. Something like passing the condition into "iterate_it" function or so...
edit: Cannot just pass another parameter because the conditions are double sometimes:
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
edit2: One question yet: how could I slice a symbol, to get a user role from a status? Something like:
:deliverer_started => :deliverer or 'deliverer'?
You can pass another parameter when you use that parameter to decide what condition to check. Just store all possible conditions as lambdas in a hash:
FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS = {
pending_acceptance: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
pending_start: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
picked_up: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.handed_over_late? && fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover? }
}
def process_fulfillments(type, order_fulfillments)
condition = FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS.fetch(type)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless condition.call(order_fulfillment)
collect_fulfillments(order_fulfillment.status, order_fulfillment)
end
end
To be called like:
process_fulfillments(:pending_acceptance, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:pending_start, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:picked_up, order_fulfillments)
you can make array of strings
arr = ['acceptance','start', ...]
in next step:
arr.each do |method|
define_method ( 'pending_#{method}'.to_sym ) do |order_fulfillments|
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
send('pending_#{method}?'); collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
end
for more information about define_method
While next is handy it comes late(r) in the code and is thus a bit more difficult to grasp. I would first select on the list, then do the action. (Note that this is only possible if your 'check' does not have side effects like in order_fullfillment.send_email_and_return_false_if_fails).
So if tests can be complex I would start the refactoring by expressing the selection criteria and then pulling out the processing of these items (wich also matches more the method names you have given), somewhere in the middle it might look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |o|
o.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance?
end
end
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |order_fulfillment|
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
end
end
def calling_code
# order_fulfillments = OrderFulFillments.get_from_somewhere
# Now, filter
collect_fulfillments(pending_start order_fulfillments)
collect_fulfillments(picked_up order_fulfillments)
end
def collect_fullfillments order_fulfillments
order_fulfillments.each {|of| collect_fullfillment(of) }
end
You'll still have 11 (+1) methods, but imho you express more what you are up to - and your colleagues will grok what happens fast, too. Given your example and question I think you should aim for a simple, expressive solution. If you are more "hardcore", use the more functional lambda approach given in the other solutions. Also, note that these approaches could be combined (by passing an iterator).
You could use something like method_missing.
At the bottom of your class, put something like this:
def order_fulfillment_check(method, order_fulfillment)
case method
when "picked_up" then return order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
...
... [more case statements] ...
...
else return order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.send(method + "?")
end
end
def method_missing(method_name, args*, &block)
args[0].each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment_check(method_name, order_fulfillment);
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
Depending on your requirements, you could check if the method_name starts with "pending_".
Please note, this code is untested, but it should be somewhere along the line.
Also, as a sidenote, order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.some_random_method is actually a violation of the law of demeter. You might want to adress this.
I have a User model in a ROR application that has multiple methods like this
#getClient() returns an object that knows how to find certain info for a date
#processHeaders() is a function that processes output and updates some values in the database
#refreshToken() is function that is called when an error occurs when requesting data from the object returned by getClient()
def transactions_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().transactions(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().transactions(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
return output
end
end
end
def events_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
end
end
end
I have several functions in my User class that look exactly the same. The only difference among these functions is the line output = getClient().something(date). Is there a way that I can make this code look cleaner so that I do not have a repetitive list of functions.
The answer is usually passing in a block and doing it functional style:
def handle_blocking(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = yield(date)
processHeaders(output)
output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token
output = yield(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
output
end
end
end
Then you call it this way:
handle_blocking(date) do |date|
getClient.something(date)
end
That allows a lot of customization. The yield call executes the block of code you've supplied and passes in the date argument to it.
The process of DRYing up your code often involves looking for patterns and boiling them down to useful methods like this. Using a functional approach can keep things clean.
Yes, you can use Object#send: getClient().send(:method_name, date).
BTW, getClient is not a proper Ruby method name. It should be get_client.
How about a combination of both answers:
class User
def method_missing sym, *args
m_name = sym.to_s
if m_name.end_with? '_on_date'
prop = m_name.split('_').first.to_sym
handle_blocking(args.first) { getClient().send(prop, args.first) }
else
super(sym, *args)
end
end
def respond_to? sym, private=false
m_name.end_with?('_on_date') || super(sym, private)
end
def handle_blocking date
# see other answer
end
end
Then you can call "transaction_on_date", "events_on_date", "foo_on_date" and it would work.
I am working on a survey app, and an Organisation has 0 or more SurveyGroups which have 0 or more Members who take the survey
For a SurveyGroup I need to know how many surveys still need to be completed so I have this method:
SurveyGroup#surveys_outstanding
def surveys_outstanding
respondents_count - surveys_completed
end
But I also need to know how many surveys are outstanding at an organisational level, so I have a method like below, but is there a more idiomatic way to do this with Array#inject or Array#reduce or similar?
Organisation#surveys_pending
def surveys_pending
result = 0
survey_groups.each do |survey_group|
result += survey_group.surveys_outstanding
end
result
end
Try this:
def surveys_pending
#surveys_pending ||= survey_groups.map(&:surveys_outstanding).sum
end
I'm using memoization in case it is slow to calculate
def surveys_pending
survey_groups.inject(0) do |result, survey_group|
result + survey_group.surveys_outstanding
end
end
n00b question. I'm trying to loop through every User record in my database. The pseudo code might look a little something like this:
def send_notifications
render :nothing => true
# Randomly select Message record from DB
#message = Message.offset(rand(Message.count)).first
random_message = #message.content
#user = User.all.entries.each do
#user = User.find(:id)
number_to_text = ""
#user.number = number_to_text #number is a User's phone number
puts #user.number
end
end
Can someone fill me in on the best approach for doing this? A little help with the syntax would be great too :)
Here is the correct syntax to iterate over all User :
User.all.each do |user|
#the code here is called once for each user
# user is accessible by 'user' variable
# WARNING: User.all performs poorly with large datasets
end
To improve performance and decrease load, use User.find_each (see doc) instead of User.all. Note that using find_each loses the ability to sort.
Also a possible one-liner for same purpose:
User.all.map { |u| u.number = ""; puts u.number }