I have a User model which has_many Portfolios, which has_many Assets which has_and_belongs_to_many AssetHistories.
Basically User 1 might have Google in their portfolio and User 2 might also have Google in their portfolio. Why populate the database with duplicate lines of stock price history for Google when I can have a many-to-many (HABTM) relationship. However what throws me off is what to put for asset_id in the AssetHistory model when it will be multiple values. I.e. it needs to reference both user 1 and user 2. User 1's Google might be asset.id 1 and User 2's Google might be asset.id 2. Therefore how do the entries in the AssetHistory model reference both the ids?
It seems pretty clear that asset_id can't be 2 values simultaneously but I can't wrap my head around this. Am I supposed to use a foreign_key and make Google the key? If so, I still have issues in my Asset model for what entry to put for Asset_History_id, because the asset Google, will have maybe 30 lines of stock price history. Each stock price history would be a different Asset_History_id.
Can someone help explain what I'm doing wrong?
Note that I am using after_save in my asset model to populate the asset price histories. I.e. when someone adds an Asset, it populates the asset_history, but it doesn't populate the asset_history_id field in the Asset model and it doesn't populate the asset_id in the AssetHistory model because I'm at a lost on what to do there.
My asset model has:
class Asset < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :asset_symbol, :shares, :cost, :date_purchased, :asset_history_id
belongs_to :portfolio
has_and_belongs_to_many :asset_histories
after_save populatepricehistory
private
def populatepricehistory
#uses an api to download price data as an array and imports it to AssetHistory...
#I expect something should go here to fill out the asset_history_id field in the Asset Model
#while simultaneously filling out the asset_id in the AssetHistory model
end
end
Asset History model
class AssetHistory < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :close, :date, :asset_id, :asset_symbol
has_and_belongs_to_many :assets
end
Migration for AssetHistoryAsset join table
class AssetHistoryAssetJoinTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
def up
create_table :asset_histories_assets, :id=> false do |t|
t.integer :asset_id
t.integer :asset_history_id
end
end
def down
drop_table :asset_histories_assets
end
end
My suggestion would be this:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assets, :through => :porfolios
has_many :porfolios
end
class Porfolio < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assets
has_many :users
end
class Asset < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :users, :through => :portfolios
has_many :portfolios
has_and_belongs_to_many :asset_histories
end
By the way, do you really need a many-to-many relationship between Asset and AssetHistory? I would imagine each instance of AssetHistory to refer to only one Asset, probably by means of belongs_to :asset / has_one :asset_history.
Related
I am trying to do a webpage for my project at school where a user can list out the stocks that he or she has and can check the weekly prices ( I know, not the best frequency of updates)
I have already managed to get chartkick and charjs to sort of work in my rails application, but I realised am missing something. I tried to map out my models to display the price changes.
Currently I have following models:
User
has_many :investment_stocks
has_many :investment_price
Investment_stock
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :investment_price
belongs_to :advisor
Investment_price
has_many :investment_stocks
has_many :users, through: :investment_stocks
Migration
Investment_price
t.string :name
t.string :price
t.date :date
My idea is to manually change the investment_price.price for each of the stocks that can be referenced and displayed on the charts. But with a user having many stocks, I am wondering if my tables need something else as the way chartkick and chartjs works is that I seem to need 3 variables to be displayed on the chart but yet i always seem to be able to work around 2 only
Edited
So now I have the following
User model
has_many :investment_stocks
has_many :investment_prices
Investment_stock model
belongs_to :user
has_many :investment_prices, dependent: :destroy
accepts_nested_attributes_for :investment_prices
Investment_price model
belongs_to :investment_stock, optional: true
belongs_to :user, optional: true
But I am having difficulty in adding in a nested form to create on investment_stock and investment_price tables a user_id
investment_stocks controller
def new
#investment_stock = InvestmentStock.new
#investment_stock.investment_prices.build
end
def create
#investment_stock= InvestmentStock.new(investment_stock_params)
#investment_stock["user_id"]= current_user.id
How do I make it such that the user_id appears on both the stock and price tables?
ok, I think that you can try it :
Investment_price model-> belongs_to :investment_stocks, belongs_to :user .
the stocks have the price, the user have the stocks and prices.
I have a Rails app with the following relationship:
region.rb
class Region < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :facilities
end
facility.rb
class Facility < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :region
end
I want to expand functionality a bit so that facilities can belong to more than one region at a time. I believe I can do this with a has_many_through relationship but I'm needing some guidance on converting the existing has_many into a has many through. I understand how to create and wire up the join table, but how would I take existing data and translate it?
So for instance. On a facility object there is region_id, since the facilities can belong to more than one region I'd probably need a region_ids field and shovel the collection of regions into that column which should then populate the other side of the association via the join table. I have this part pretty much figured out as far as moving forward and wiring up the association. But I'm unsure as to how to take existing data and translate it over so the app doesn't break when I change the model association.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
I suggest you to always use has_many :through instead of HBTM.
To establish this kind of relation you'll need the following set up:
# region.rb
class Region
has_many :facility_regions
has_many :facilities, through: :facility_regions
end
# facility.rb
class Facility
has_many :facility_regions
has_many :regions, through: :facility_regions
end
# facility_region.rb
class FacilityRegion
belongs_to :facility
belongs_to :region
end
Also, of course, you'll need to create a migration:
rails g migration create_facility_regions facility_id:integer region_id:integer
# in this migration create a uniq index:
add_index :facility_regions, %I(facility_id region_id), name: :facility_region
rake db:migrate
UPD
As to migration from one database state to another one.
I think it should not be a problem.
1) Do not delete the relations you had before (leave has_many :facilities and belongs_to :region in models).
2) When new table is created and new associations added to the classes (which I showed) create a new migration:
rails g migration migrate_database_state
3) Write the script, which will create new records in db (to reflect the current state of things):
ActiveRecord::Base.transaction do
Facility.where.not(region_id: nil).find_each do |facility|
next if FacilityRegion.find_by(falicity_id: facility.id, region_id: facility.region_id)
FacilityRegion.create!(facility_id: facility.id, region_id: facility.region_id)
end
end
4) Put this script into last created migration and run it (or in console without migration, effect would be the same).
5) After script is successfully run, create new migration in which you delete region_id from facilities table and remove these associations definitions (has_many :facilities and belongs_to :region) from models.
It must be it. I might have made some typos or so, make sure I did not miss anything and
You need to add another model, a "middle guy" called FacilityRegion.rb, like this:
facility.rb
class Facility < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :falicity_regions
has_many :regions, through: falicity_regions
end
facility_region.rb
class FacilityRegion < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :region
belongs_to :facility
end
region.rb
class Region < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :falicity_regions
has_many :facilities, through: falicity_regions
end
If you want to use belongs_and_has_many relationship, you need to:
rails g migration CreateJoinTableRegionsFacilities regions facilities
Then,
rake db:migrate
Now, your relationships should be:
Region.rb:
class Region < ApplicationRecord
has_and_belongs_to_many :facilities
end
Facility.rb
class Facility < ApplicationRecord
has_and_belongs_to_many :regions
end
In order to populate the new join table, you will need to in your console:
Region.all.find_each do |r|
Facility.where(region_id: r.id).find_each do |f|
r.facilities << f
end
end
Now, you can either leave the columns region_id and facility_id in Facility and Region table, respectively, or you can create a migration to delete it.
I'd like to set up my application such that a User has many Assets, and the assets table would reference other tables by it's columns "asset_type" and "asset_id".
Each asset type, should have it's own table with it's own columns.
This should allow: user.assets.count to get a count of all asset types
Also:
user.images to get all the images where id = asset_id (and asset_type = "image").
I've looked at polymorphic associations, multiple table inheritance, has_many :through, etc. I can't seem to get this one figured out.
I tried to upload a diagram, but I do not have enough reputation.
I apologize in advance if this has been asked before, perhaps it's the wording I'm searching or otherwise - but I've been very unsuccessful at finding this solution after several attempts. Any help very much appreciated!
You could do something like this
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assets
has_many :images
end
class Asset < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :profile, polymorphic: true
end
class Image < Asset
# inherits user, profile and all Asset attributes
end
class ImageProfile < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :asset, as: :profile, dependent: :destroy
end
So it's STI for Asset which of course needs a "type" column (string). You can then have all the types you need: Image, Video, Document, ...
And polymorphic association for the profiles of each type. ImageProfile is the table for Image specific columns, and you create other tables for VideoProfile, DocumentProfile, etc.
You can read more about this architecture here http://railscasts.com/episodes/394-sti-and-polymorphic-associations
If ImageProfile has a column exif_data, then you access it via image.profile.exif_data.
To create a new image, you can do this:
#image = current_user.images.new.tap do |image|
image.profile = ImageProfile.new profile_params
end
I have a Sponsors model and a Promo Codes model.
A sponsor can have zero or more promo codes
A promo code can have zero or one sponsors
Thus a promo code should have an optional reference to a sponsor, that is, a sponsor_id that may or may not have a value. I'm not sure how to set this up in Rails.
Here's what I have so far:
# app/models/sponsor.rb
class Sponsor < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :promo_codes # Zero or more.
end
# app/models/promo_code.rb
class PromoCode < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :sponsor # Zero or one.
end
# db/migrate/xxxxx_add_sponsor_reference_to_promo_codes.rb
# rails g migration AddSponsorReferenceToPromoCodes sponsor:references
# Running migration adds a sponsor_id field to promo_codes table.
class AddSponsorReferenceToPromoCodes < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
add_reference :promo_codes, :sponsor, index: true
end
end
Does this make sense? I'm under the impression that I have to use belongs_to in my Promo Codes model, but I have no basis for this, just that I've haven't seen a has_many with has_one example yet.
In Rails 5, belongs_to is defined as required by default. To make it optional use the 'optional' option :)
class User
belongs_to :company, optional: true
end
Source: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/18233
This looks like a simple has_many and belongs_to relationship:
# app/models/sponsor.rb
class Sponsor < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :promo_codes # Zero or more.
end
# app/models/promo_code.rb
#table has sponsor_id field
class PromoCode < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :sponsor # Zero or one.
end
has_one isn't appropriate here, as it would replace has_many: ie, you either have "has_many" and "belongs_to" OR "has_one" and "belongs_to". has_one isn't generally used much: usually it is used when you already have a has_many relationship that you want to change to has_one, and don't want to restructure the existing tables.
Unless you specify validation, relationships are optional by default.
The belongs_to is to tell rails the other half of the relationship between those two objects so you can also call #promo_code.sponsor and, vice versa, #sponsor.promo_codes.
I want to make a cooking site but don't know the correct was to build database.
My models are: Recipe and Ingredient.
Ingredient in recipe should be autocomplete field. The problem is that user can put there any text. ("cucumber" or "cucamber") and it will be different ingredients.
I want to make a search by ingredients and links to them. What is the best way to do it?
A recipe has many items, which in turn keeps a reference to an ingredient, an amount and a measure type. So you can go with:
rails generate model Recipe name:string description:text
rails generate model Item recipe:references ingredient:references amount:decimal measure:string
rails generate model Ingredient name:string
and then add to your classes:
class Recipe < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items
has_many :ingredients, :through => :items
# this allows things like #recipes = Recipe.using("cucumber")
scope :using, lambda do |text|
joins(:ingredients).where("ingredients.name LIKE ?", "%#{text}%")
end
end
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :recipe
belongs_to :ingredient
VALID_MEASURES = %w[oz kg tbsp] # use for "select" tags in forms
validates :measure, :inclusion => VALID_MEASURES
end
class Ingredient < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :item
end
From here you start building your views, autocomplete, whatever your imagination allows.