I've got an app with illustrations that belong_to editions that belong_to novels. Currently illustrations do not belong_to novels, and I'd prefer if they didn't. On the form I can pass the edition_id when creating the illustration but can't figure out a way to pass the novel_id since it's not an attribute of illustration. I need to identify a unique novel edition pairing to create the illustration because many editions may have the name 1st, for instance, but different publication dates, etc.... I'm thinking I can make these a hash and then handle them in the controller. I don't know how to do that though. Is that the right approach? How do you make a hash out of 2 fields in a form?
Why do you need to do it from view?
If you need just pass to illustration novel_id, knowing edition_id:
#edition=Edition.find(params[:id])
novel_id=#edition.novel.id
Related
I am working on an application that allows various people from different departments in a company log in and edit a form. Each department has specific fields in the form that only they are allowed to edit and view.
Would it be more organized code if I create one model for the entire set of fields and based on who logs in, render a different form containing the necessary fields? Or would it be better to split the department-specific fields into their own models and then based on who logs in, render a form containing their specific fields and relate the records from different departments together through a foreign key of some sort?
"It depends" is probably the best answer.
How many fields do you have? How much logic exists per department form type?
If you split all the fields to separate models (and corresponding tables) it will become a hassle if you ever want a full overview of the forms after they have been filled in, because they would be in separate tables. You'd have to go through every association of the form to get the full form.
If you still want to split them, because you have a lot of logic per department, you could point all your models to one 'main' table that contains all the fields, using table_name. That way you have all the data in one table and you can easily retrieve it. However, you'd also have to save the type of form in order to retrieve it in the correct model, probably more trouble than it's worth. (If it's the best thing to save all your fields in one table depends as well, how often does it get retrieved or does it get inserted/updated more often.)
Simple forms will probably fit just fine in one model. Unless you have a lot of non-sharable code per department it probably isn't worth it to split the form into separate models. If you do split the form into models you probably should create one main form model and have the department models extend it for whatever bit of reusable form logic there is.
After all that, I would say, I prefer simplicity so I'd probably save it in one model.
I'd split the fields and then you can setup your models with accepts_nested_attributes_for to build your form appropriately.
I've read so many Rails books/tutorials, but when it comes time to actually make the app, I keep tripping over myself, so I'm trying this little exercise to help me get it better.
I have an app with 3 classes (Link, Url, Visit) that have associations defined between them, such as has_one, belongs_to etc. This allows me to call methods like Link.url
If I were to convert this into an app with a single model, is it possible to create the convenience methods (such as Link.url) even though there are no relationships between models, because there is only one model.
This might not be the 'Rails way' but if you answer this question it'll help me get it more.
I guess another way to ask this is, do the Rails associations only exist because the tab
Thanks
Models exist to represent tables in a database. If you have 3 different conceptual objects, then you need 3 different models. Keeping those objects separate and in different tables/models is essential to good programming in any language. The relations are there to help you understand the correlation of each object to the others.
If you think all of data from each of the models can be represented in one table sensibly, then combine them in to one model with a name that encompasses all of the data. If you choose this option, you'll use columns for that one table which represent each of the pieces of data you need. Those column names come free in the model when you create the migration. A table with a column named "url" on a model named "Hit" could be used like this:
Hit.first.url
I have an interesting problem that I never had to deal with before. I'm looking for the best way to approach it.
I'm creating an admin site linking students to virtual machines. A Student can sign up for multiple courses and has one virtual_machine_id which depends on the combination of courses they take. An Admin can create new courses and (separately) map combinations of courses to specific virtual_machine_ids.
1) What's the best way to associate a combination of variable elements with a specific id? If the elements were fixed, I would create a table with columns for each element and one column for the virtual_machine_id. But since these elements can change (as admins add or remove courses), how do I map them in a way that I can easily query for a combination and it's associated id?
2) Right now, I have Students mapped to Courses using a has_many :through association and a third table with student_id and course_id. Is this the right way if I need to collect combinations of courses and assign the entire combination a single virtual_machine_id (i can't assign the id to the student because they could potentially have more than one virtual_machine depending on how many courses they take)
I was looking at the EAV (entity-attribute-value) model as a solution but the general consensus seems to be that it's a bad a idea because you lose some ActiveRecord features.
If you wish to use EAV with ActiveRecord ORM you can look at hydra_attribute gem which allows to create new attributes in runtime and has possibility to find/sort/group by them.
Currently the 0.3.2 version doesn't support attribute sets but in the next release I'll add this feature and you will be able to assign the unique attribute collection to each Student record.
I'm doing a fairly complicated model on Ruby on Rails right now, and I was wondering what the correct "Rails" way of doing "custom types" for attributes was. For example, I have a table businesses which has a string attribute region. But region can only be one of a predefined list of possibilities (that could later be expanded). My question is: where do I define this Region type?
I know I could make a specific regions table (i.e. a Region model) which could house all the options, and then I could make an association between the models that have regions to that table. The problem is that I have many of these types on my model, so I would end up with more than half the tables in my database being "custom type tables" that only store the possible values for these types. Is that practical?
I also read that you could do this through validations (i.e. validate when saving a record, that the variables were within the possible values). This seems very impractical, since I want to make this model expandable, and form views would need to load the possible values of types into select boxes, etc. If I used this method, every time I needed to add a new possible value for a type, I'd have to change the validation and the views.
Is there a standard way of doing something like this? Something like defining types (maybe models without DB backing?) where I could list all the possible values easily?
Thank you for any help or suggestions on this. It's been bothering me for a long time while doing RoR apps, and I'm tired of hacking around it.
I guess there are many different ways to do it. Personally I would keep things very simple and DRY.
In an initializer, set arrays in the global scope:
REGIONS = ["region A", "region B", "region C"]
In the models, use validations as you wrote. Check that the value is in the REGIONS array.
In the views, use Rails helpers to populate selects, radios etc. from the REGIONS array. If you always have the same select, write your own helper region_select for instance.
In some of my forms I have to provide a dropdown where users can select some districts. The thing is, there will always be a fixed number of districts ( 31 in this case ). Should I create a model named District having only a string field,populate it with the data and be done with it?
It's content will not modify over time. Is there another way?
You should take a look at jnunemakers scam-gem. It mimics the AR for you and lets you define the models in your Rails app without a backing database/table.
I use this whenever I want something to do psuedo belongs to/has many relationships, but do not want to back a model with a database as the data does not change often, if ever.
Making a table-backed model is the simplest way. Otherwise you're going to end up implementing half of an AR model anyway, because you'll want to use collection_select at some point.
I guess it depends on how you want to store the districts and whether you want to do any querying etc.
For example, you could just have the list of districts as a constant, then store them as a string in your models (not very elegant), or as you say you could create a model and use active record associations - this would allow you to easily query on districts etc.