I call first_or_create like so:
collection = Collection.first_or_create(:title => title)
Is there a way to determine if the result is an existing entry or a freshly created one? So far the best solution I've come up with is to use first_or_initialize:
collection = Collection.first_or_initialize(:title => title)
if collection.id.nil?
<process>
collection.save
end
But this feels a bit hacky. Is there a way to get this information directly from first_or_create?
first_or_create takes a block that'll only be executed if a new record is created, you can set some flag inside that block to indicate it's a new record, for example
MyObject.where(attr: "value").first_or_create do |obj|
#my_object_created = true
end
As far as I know you can't know. Two options are to check the created_at time (unreliable), or instead use first_or_initialize, then check to see if new_record? is true, and if so, do your other operations and then call save!. This may be the best approach for you anyway, since you may very well not want to finalize the save until the other relations are saved, and you probably want to do all of that in the same database transaction.
Using first_or_create you can't know for sure is it a newly created object or one from the database. Possible tricky solution is to compare created_at value with current time. This works if you don't create objects often.
Btw, why you need to know is it the newly created object or not?
Related
Before updating the record, I need to do some checks. As a result of one of the checks, I need to destroy the record that is being updated.
I have two questions.
How good is this solution? (I need to delete a record on update because a similar record was found among the old ones)
What is the correct way to implement cancellation of an update after a record has been destroyed?
I wrote this simple code:
return yield unless title_changed?
tmp_destroyed = false
# some code
tmp_destroyed = true if destroy!
# some code
return if tmp_destroyed
yield
But I'm not sure if this is the right decision.
Can you please tell me if I'm doing everything right? And did I choose the right way for the solution?
I would suggest, before updating the record, check your conditions in controller and if your conditions is true then delete the record instead of checking in model callback methods.
How can i remove the last element from an ActiveRecord_Relation in rails?
e.g. if I set:
#drivers = Driver.all
I can add a another Driver object called #new_driver to #drivers by doing:
#drivers << #new_driver
But how can I remove an object from #drivers?
The delete method doesn't seem to work, i.e.
#drivers.delete(0)
You can use the reject! method, this will remove the object from the collection without affecting the db
for example:
driver_to_delete = #driver.first # you need the object that you want removed
#drivers.reject!{|driver| driver == driver_to_delete}
Very late too, but I arrived here looking for a fast answer and finished by thinking by myself ;)
Just to clarify about the different answers and the Rails 6.1 comment on accepted answer:
The OP wanted to remove one entry from a query, but NOT remove it from database, so any answer with delete or destroy is just wrong (this WILL delete data from your database !!).
In Ruby (and therefore Rails) convention, shebang methods (ending with !) tend to alter the given parameter. So reject! would imply modifying the source list ... but an ActiveRecord_Relation is basically just a query, NOT an array of entries !
So you'd have 2 options:
Write your query differently to specifically say you don't want some id:
#drivers.where.not(id: #driver_to_remove) # This still is an ActiveRecord_Relation
Use reject (NO shebang) on your query to transform it into an Array and "manually" remove the entry you don't want:
#drivers.reject{ |driver| driver == #driver_to_remove}
# The `reject` forces the execution of the query in DB and returns an Array)
On a performance point of view, I would personally recommend the first solution as it would be just a little more complex against the DB where the latter implies looping on the whole (eventually large) array.
Late to the question, but just had the same issue and hope this helps someone else.
reject!did not work for ActiveRecord_Relation in Rails 4.2
drop(1) was the solution
In this case #drivers.drop(0) would work to drop the first element of the relation
Since its an array of objects, have you tried to write something like #drivers.delete(#new_driver) or #drivers.delete(id: #new_driver.id) ?
This is the documentation you need:
#group.avatars << Avatar.new
#group.avatars.delete(#group.avatars.last)
--
.destroy
The problem you've got is you're trying to use collection methods on a non-collection object. You'll need to use the .destroy ActiveRecord method to get rid of the record from the database (and consequently the collection):
#drivers = Driver.all
#drivers.last.destroy
--
Scope
.delete will remove the record from the DB
If you want to pull specific elements from the db to populate the #drivers object, you'll need to use a scope:
#app/models/driver.rb
Class Driver < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :your_scope, -> { where column: "value" }
end
This will allow you to call:
#app/controllers/drivers_controller.rb
def index
#drivers = Driver.your_scope
end
I think you're getting the MVC programming pattern confused - data manipulation is meant to happen in the model, not the controller
As stated above, reject! doesn't work in Rails 4.2, but delete does, so #drivers.delete(#new_driver) works, and more generally:
#drivers.delete(Driver.where(your condition))
I'm working on an audit trail of sorts for an app so that the user can see what is being changed throughout the system.
I have a hash of changes from ActiveRecord Dirty, like follows:
{"ingredient_type_id"=>[nil, 199575006], "name"=>[nil, "asdfg"], "amount"=>[nil, 3.0], "unit"=>[nil, "x"], "notes"=>[nil, "asdf"]}
This works great and I can parse what I need to output and create database records with the info.
I just have one question - How can I get associated objects from this? In this case, the ingredient_type? I actually want to output something like:
"Ingredient type was changed to #{IngredientType.find(199575006).name}."
But I'm not sure how I would parse that hash on a dynamic basis to do that.
Pretty much the way you've suggested I'd have thought, But you don't need to parse the hash for the changes, Dirty gives you much more than that
if ingredient_type_id_changed?
unless ingredient_type_id.blank?
ingredient_name = IngredientType.find(ingredient_type_id).name
else
ingredient_name = 'blank'
end
end
You might even be able to do ingredient_type.name, Not sure at that point if active record dirty will let you go through the association. If you test it (or if anyone else knows) let me know
Hi I currently have a helper method that gets Klass.all.map{|m| m.name}. Now I use ids to get the name from the array and if I add more it'll automatically update.
When I use this helper method in a loop in the view, I think it will make multiple queries to get the Klass each time which means a lot of extra work.
I was wondering how I can "cache" this array or if I should be doing this a better way.
Thanks!
SQL caching is done automatically if you're within the same action. You can see here for a more detailed explanation. Just by the way, it would probably be more efficient to use pluck, as in Klass.pluck(:name). This would optimize your SQL query.
Your helper method should look similar to this
def klass_names
#klass_names ||= Klass.all.map{|m| m.name}
end
I'm using this code:
item = Item.find_or_create_by(:name => title.strip)
if item.changed?
results.newItemsCount += 1
end
I want to get the count of newly created records for logging. I was hoping that the .changed property would be true for items that are newly created but it looks like it isn't. The next part of the code may modify the item even if it isn't new, so I really need to know right here if the item is new.
Is there a way to tell if the record is new or not? Didn't see anything like that in the docs. You'd think that just setting the title (in the constructor) would qualify as changed but it seems like that doesn't happen.
I don't think its possible to find whether the call was find or create using changed? or persisted? methods.
Instead you can do this by find_or_initialize_by. Here you can check persisted? value to determine the item is new or not. if its false then you know that its a new document.
item = Item.find_or_initialize_by(:name => title.strip)
unless item.persisted?
item.save
results.newItemsCount += 1
end
Other way is you can use after_create callback. if its a new item this callback will be triggered. And you can do your operation here.
Hope it helps
Maybe it is too late, but it is possible.
You can pass a block like this:
item = Item.find_or_create_by(:name => title.strip) do |_i|
puts "Called only for newly created records"
end
Hope it will help somebody.