I have 8 plans for the user to choose from. These plans all represents forms which would results in products added into the cart.
A few plans will ask different questions. For example plan A,B,C would ask the user if he/she want to purchase additional addon. Plan D,E would ask the user the total credit to store in their account.
This seems to suggest that we have separate views for each of the plan. But this means we then need to add show and edit actions for each of the plan. A bit tedious. So I want to ask if there is a pattern for having record specific view in Rails.
Not really sure if this can be answered in any specific conclusive way, but I would use partials in such a case.
let's assume your plan has a type field somewhere you could do the following
<%= render partial: "plan_#{#plan.type}" %>
Whereas each of these _plan_X.html.erb partials contains the plan specific information you want to display.
This pattern can be adopted for all of your views (maybe your edit action has different data depending on your plan type etc.
Related
I have a question for a project I am working on. I am working on a RoR project in which a site is selling a single type of item, a book. The person I am creating this for does not want to deal with users creating user account to check out as the sales season is very short for this product, the purchases are done once per year, and the site only sells a single item.
I am wondering if there is something wrong with the implementation I am thinking of. What I was envisioning was a single database class called Orders. visitors to the site would simple fill out an order form with payment details through stripe and click submit. If they payment clears, the order with all the Orders information would be persisted to the DB. If the payment fails then it is not persisted and the relevant error information is displayed in using flash.
I suppose the meat of my question is; is there anything inherently 'wrong' about implementing this model without a users class and just having visitors to the site place orders?
I am a fairly new developer and this is my first big project so any feedback is appreciated!
If your requirements say that it is okay, then it is okay, if your requirements say it is not okay, then it is not okay.
There's not more to say, since only you know what your requirements are.
I have a problem where I cannot figure out how to solve.
Lets say i have a company with products. I want to be able to add new products, delete products and edit current products.
I also want to list these projects on a product page.
I know how to add pages and so on. But does this require that i need to create a single page for each product? And then get all childpages information?
I am greatful for any suggestion!
It depends on what you want to do with the products. If you want to have a product detail page, then it makes sense to have a page for each product.
On the other hand, if you want to just list the products and not have a page for each one, you could use something like Archetype, or Nested Content.
It's also worth bearing in mind that if this is going to be an e-commerce site, there are a number of excellent options available that you could use for product management etc. You should investigate uCommerce, Tea Commerce and Merchello for example, to see if they offer the functionality that you require without needed to write too much yourself.
Work through the beginners' tutorial
https://our.umbraco.org/documentation/tutorials/creating-basic-site/
The articles parent and child model can be used for what you need (instead of "Articles Main" you'd have "Product Listing" and "Article Item" would be "Product"). If you don't need a specific page for each product just don't assign a template to the product nodes.
I'm building a Rails 3.1 application that allows people to submit events. One of the fields for the event is a venue. On the create/edit form, the venue_name field has autocomplete functionality so it displays venues with a similar name, but the user is able to enter any name.
When the form is submitted, I'm using find_or_create_by_name when attaching the venue to the event model.
I'm doing this because it's not possible for us to maintain a complete list of venues and I don't want to prevent people from submitting an event because the venue isn't in the list.
The problem is that it's quite likely we'll get duplicates over time like "Venue Name" and "The Venue Name" or any number of other possibilities.
I was thinking that I probably just need to create an administrative tool that allows the admin to review recent venues and if he/she thinks they're duplicates to search/select a master record and have the duplicate record's association copied over to the master record and once successful to delete the duplicate record.
Is this a good approach? In terms of the data manipulation would it be best to handle this in a transaction? Would it be best to add this functionality in a sort of utility class - or directly in the Venue model?
Thanks for your time.
If I were going to put together a system like that, I'd probably try to find a unique identifier I could associate with each venue - perhaps an address or a phone number?
So, if I had "The Clubhouse" with a phone number 503-555-1212, and someone tried to input a new venue called "Clubhouse" with the phone number 503-555-1212, I might take them to an interstitial page where I ask them "Did you mean this location?"
Barring that, I might ask for a phone number or address first, then present a list of possible matches with the option to create a new venue.
Otherwise, you're introducing a lot of potential for error at the admin level, plus you run into a scalability problem. If your admin has to review 10 entries a month, maybe not so bad - but if your app takes off and that number goes to 1000, that becomes unmanageable fast!
I'm learning Rails by building a simple site where users can create articles and comment on those articles. I have a view which lists a user's most recent articles and comments. Now I'd like to add user 'profiles' where users can enter information like their location, age and a short biography. I'm wondering if this profile should be a separate model/resource (I already have quite a lot of fields in my user model because I'm using Authlogic and most of it's optional fields).
What are the pros and cons of using a separate resource?
I'd recommend keeping profile columns in the User model for clarity and simplicity. If you find that you're only using certain fields, only select the columns you need using :select.
If you later find that you need a separate table for some reason (e.g. one user can have multiple profiles) it shouldn't be a lot of work to split them out.
I've made the mistake of having two tables and it didn't buy me anything but additional complexity.
Pros: It simplifies each model
Cons: Managing 2 at once is slightly harder
It basically comes down to how big the user and profile are. If the user is 5 fields, and the profile 3, there is no point. But if the user is 12 fields, and the profile 20, then you definitely should.
I think you'd be best served putting in a separate model. Think about how the models correspond to database tables, and then how you read those for the various use cases your app supports.
If a user only dips in to his actual profile once in a while but the User model is accessed frequently, you should definitely make it a separate object with a one-to-one relationship. If the profile data is needed every time the User data is needed, you might want to stick them in the same table.
Maybe the location is needed every time you display the user (say on a comment they left), but the biography should be a different model? You'll have to figure out the right breakdown, but the general rule is to structure things so you don't have to pull data that isn't being used right away.
A user "owns" various resources on your site, such as comments, etc. If you separate the profile from the user then it's just one more resource. The user is static, while the profile will change from time to time.
Separating it out would also allow you to easily maintain a profile history.
I would keep it separate. Not all your users would want to fill out a profile, so those would be empty fields sitting in your user table. It also means you can change the profile fields without changing any of the logic of your user model.
Depends on the width of the existing user table. Databases typically havea limit to the number of bytes a recird can contain. I fyou are close to (or over which you can usually do if you have lots of fields with null values) the limit, I would add a table with a one-to-one relationship for better performance and less of a likelihood of a record that suddenly can't be inserted as there is too much data for the row size. If you are nowhere near the limit, the add to the exisiting table.
I'm required to provide functions for both users and administrators to edit account and profile details in a web application. An example of a URL for the public side of these profiles is:
http://example.com/user/joe
I'm still torn between two ways to design these URLs. I've thought of either this:
http://example.com/user/joe/edit
Or something non-specific and separate to the profiles:
http://example.com/account
The benefit of the first one is that it allows administrators to do their job through the same functions. This avoids building a whole different backend specifically for administrators. I suppose the negative here is that I'd have to be careful with authorization and make sure nobody can edit what they are not supposed to edit.
The second is a more standard way of doing things, it'd turn out to be simpler and easier to secure, though it means a separate interface for administrative users.
What is SO's opinions on this? Are there any more pros/cons for either way? Which method would you recommend to use?
I would have a different view for the administrator with such a security sensitive area. It makes things much more explicit having a separate view. It is likely even an administrator would only be able to edit certain user information and thus have a different view to the user editing themselves.
It makes the authorization much clearer even if the two views shared a common edit form
If you are using an MVC approach, then my suggestion would be:
http://example.com/user/edit/1234
or
http://example.com/user/edit/joe
Where user is the controller, edit the controller method and 1234 or joe the user id or username respectively.
But as Gumbo commented, administrators should not be allowed to edit user information. They should have some mecanism to disable the account in case of a profile has offensive content or false info. Forcing the user to update it to get the account active again.
The way we do it is the admin and the user share the same view. Items which are admin-only are protected from editing or viewing by the user.
The reason for the single view is:
It reduces the number of 'moving parts' - when a new field is added to the user screen, it only needs to be added once,
It is easier to move items to/from the user's purview. If all of a sudden, management decides to allow a user to manage their "FizzBar" then we only need make the change in one place, and
It is easier to segregate the roles and the functions at the controller level.
I think that you should go with the second approach. It's more secure and flexible, and shouldn't be harder to code than profile editing the profile inline.