I use Rails 3 with MongoMapper.
I want to add some records to the result of has many association.
For example, user has_many posts
class User
include MongoMapper::Document
many :posts
end
By default it will show only posts which belongs to the user, but if he/she specify special option in query (or in the user's settings menu, say show-commented=true), then I also need to add posts where user left any comments. So I think to override posts method
def posts
super + (show_commented_posts ? commented_posts : [])
end
But of course it doesn't work. How can I correctly override this method using mongo_mapper? Or is there any better approach for that problem?
Overriding methods on mongomapper is a very bad idea, you should try to refrain from doing it as it creates a lot of problems that are hard to trace back (I've been burned before by this).
Instead, you should consider using a scope such as
class Post
scope :related_to_user, lambda {|user| where('$or' => [ {user_id: user.id}, {'comments.user_id' => user.id}]) }
end
Then you can call
Post.related_to_user(current_user)
Related
I am trying to learn how to use scopes in my Rails 5 app.
I have asked a background question here.
have models in my Rails 5 app for User, Proposal and Potential.
Users create Proposals which they themselves and others can then create comments on.
The associations between models are:
User
has_many :proposals, dependent: :destroy
has_many :potentials
Proposal
belongs_to :user
has_many :potentials, inverse_of: :proposal
accepts_nested_attributes_for :potentials, reject_if: :all_blank, allow_destroy: true
Potential
belongs_to :proposal, inverse_of: :potentials
belongs_to :user
In my routes file, I have two resources for potentials. I'm not sure if I've gone off piste with this bit- I cant find an example of how to do this otherwise. I have both:
resources :potentials
as well as:
resources :proposals do
resources :potentials
Objective:
When the user who made the proposal tries to edit it, I only want that user to be able to edit the potentials that they created themselves.
The reason I have two routes set up for potentials is that the nested resource has a nested form fields inside the proposal form, so that the proposal creator can make a potential in that way. Any other user that sees the proposal and makes a potential does it via a separate form.
Any user (including the proposal creator, can edit the potential via that separate form), and the proposal creator can also edit any of its own proposals by the nested form in the proposal form.
At the moment, whenever I edit the proposal form (even when I don't edit the potential nested fields), all of the potentials are updated to insert the proposal creator's user id overriding the actual potential creator's user id.
Solution
I am trying to limit the edit action in the proposals controller, so that it only allows the proposal /potentials to be edited if they have the user_id == the proposal.user_id.
For this purpose, I have written scopes in my proposal.rb
scope :owner_potentials, ->{ where(user_id: potential.user_id ) }
scope :third_party_potentials, ->{ where(user_id: != potential.user_id) }
The solution in the post i liked above was to try using a scope. Since scopes are meant to work on the class, rather than an instance, I'm stuck in trying to figure out how to adapt them so that I can use the scope to search for all the compliant potentials (i.e. potentials where potential.user_id == proposal.user_id). That means Im not searching the Proposal class, Im searching the specific proposal.
This post suggested defining Event.all inside the relevant controller action, but then how would I limit that so it only applied to the specific potentials edit line? I have other lines in my edit action which should not be tested on the Proposal table, but just the instance. If this were able to work, I imagine I would then need to rewrite my scope to try to exclude all the other proposals.
Is there a way to use an edit action in a controller with a scope, on a specific instance?
I would suggest scopes like this:
scope :owner_potentials, -> (user_id) { where(user_id: user_id) }
scope :third_party_potentials, -> (user_id) { where.not(user_id: user_id) }
When calling these scopes you just need to pass current user's id.
Scopes define queries for the AR class they are defined in. You say you have written owner_potentials and third_party_potentials scopes in proposal.rb. But if these scopes are meant to return a collection of potentials, then these should be defined in the Potential class. If you need to access these scopes from a proposal record, you can chain scopes to associations, e.g.
class Potential
scope :owner_potentials, -> (user) { where(user: user) }
scope :third_party_potentials, -> (user) { where.not(user: user) }
end
...
class ProposalsController # Proposals::PotentialsController..? imo Proposals::PotentialsController#edit sounds like an endpoint for editing exactly one potential record and nothing else, which doesn't sound like what you want. Your call on how to structure the controller/routes though.
def edit
#proposal = ... # Whatever your logic is to find the proposal
#proposal.potentials.owner_potentials(current_user) # do something with the user's potentials
#proposal.potentials.third_party_potentials(current_user) # do something with the potentials the user doesn't own
end
end
You can see here how you chain an association (.potentials) to a scope (.owner_potentials).
Also, if you have an association, you can treat that association as a field in a where method, a la where(user: user) instead of where(user_id: user.id).
Last thing to note is that you probably want to change the name of the scopes with this refactor.
potentials.owner_potentials(user) is a bit redundant. Maybe something like potentials.owned_by(user) ?
I have two models one of them is a User, and another Comments. Comments belong to User.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
act_as_paranoid
has_many :comments
end
class Comment < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
When I do user.delete in my controller I get the expected result of the deleted_at column being set and the record being hidden.
My problem is the Comment associations for the user are set to null. So now on the site it shows no user owning the comment. I'd like the comment to still show the user's name not be "None" or "Anonymous" etc.
Looking at the source on github https://github.com/goncalossilva/rails3_acts_as_paranoid/blob/rails3.2/lib/acts_as_paranoid/core.rb it seems to call run_callbacks which in turn results in Rails 3 falling back to Nullify default for associations.
In my case I just want the user account to be closed off when deleted. Not showing up in queries anymore so that Authlogic will deny them and the User index page won't show them. But still allowing everything a user owns to still be owned by them (since they may come back, etc.).
Is there a better way to do this then acts_as_paranoid?
Rather then go to the trouble of overriding the destroy method I created a close method that simply sets closed_at to a timestamp. If you set default scope to something like:
default_scope { where("closed_at IS NULL") }
Then the model won't show up to any queries including User.All. You can delete the scope to get a full query essentially I took these ideas from act_as_paranoid but much more simplified. The problem is that then even though the Comments still have user_id set, the default scope runs with any association load. So say
c = Comment.first
c.user
That will output nil if user_id is a closed account. In my case the easiest solusion was to remove default scoping and modify my Authlogic function to:
def self.find_by_username_or_email(login)
u = User.find(:first, :conditions => ["lower(username) = ?", login.downcase]) || User.find_by_email(login)
return u unless u.closed_at
end
This way closed accounts can't login. Anywhere I list out users in my views I used a hide_closed scope.
Not sure if this was the best most elegant solution. But for my purposes it works.
I've got an ActiveAdmin index page
ActiveAdmin.register Bill
And I am trying to display links to associated models
index do
column "User" do |bill|
link_to bill.user.name, admin_user_path(bill.user)
end
end
But I run into the N+1 query problem - there's a query to fetch each user.
Is there a way of eager loading the bills' users?
The way to do this is to override the scoped_collection method (as noted in Jeff Ancel's answer) but call super to retain the existing scope. This way you retain any pagination/filtering which has been applied by ActiveAdmin, rather than starting from scratch.
ActiveAdmin.register Bill do
controller do
def scoped_collection
super.includes :user
end
end
index do
column "User" do |bill|
link_to bill.user.name, admin_user_path(bill.user)
end
end
end
As noted in official documentation at http://activeadmin.info/docs/2-resource-customization.html
There is an answer on a different post, but it describes well what you need to do here.
controller do
def scoped_collection
Bill.includes(:user)
end
end
Here, you will need to make sure you follow scope. So if your controller is scope_to'ed, then you will want to replace the model name above with the scope_to'ed param.
The existing answers were right at the time, but ActiveAdmin supports eager loading with a much more convenient syntax now:
ActiveAdmin.register Bill do
includes :user
end
See the docs for resource customization
IMPORTANT EDIT NOTE : what follows is actually false, see the comments for an explanation. However I leave this answer where it stands because it seems I'm not the only one to get confused by the guides, so maybe someone else will find it useful.
i assume that
class Bill < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
so according to RoR guides it is already eager-loaded :
There’s no need to use :include for immediate associations – that is,
if you have Order belongs_to :customer, then the customer is
eager-loaded automatically when it’s needed.
you should check your SQL log if it's true (didn't know that myself, i was just verifying something about :include to answer you when i saw this... let me know)
I've found scoped_collection loads all the entries, instead of just the ones for the page you are displaying. I think a better option is apply_collection_decorator that will only preload the items you are effectively displaying.
controller do
def apply_collection_decorator(collection)
collection.includes(:user)
end
end
I have a Rails 3 project. With Rails 3 came Arel and the ability to reuse one scope to build another. I am wondering if there is a way to use scopes when defining a relationship (e.g. a "has_many").
I have records which have permission columns. I would like to build a default_scope that takes my permission columns into consideration so that records (even those accessed through a relationship) are filtered.
Presently, in Rails 3, default_scope (including patches I've found) don't provide a workable means of passing a proc (which I need for late variable binding). Is it possible to define a has_many into which a named scope can be passed?
The idea of reusing a named scope would look like:
Orders.scope :my_orders, lambda{where(:user_id => User.current_user.id)}
has_many :orders, :scope => Orders.my_orders
Or implicitly coding that named scope in the relationship would look like:
has_many :orders, :scope => lambda{where(:user_id => User.current_user.id)}
I'm simply trying to apply default_scope with late binding. I would prefer to use an Arel approach (if there is one), but would use any workable option.
Since I am referring to the current user, I cannot rely on conditions that aren't evaluated at the last possible moment, such as:
has_many :orders, :conditions => ["user_id = ?", User.current_user.id]
I suggest you take a look at "Named scopes are dead"
The author explains there how powerful Arel is :)
I hope it'll help.
EDIT #1 March 2014
As some comments state, the difference is now a matter of personal taste.
However, I still personally recommend to avoid exposing Arel's scope to an upper layer (being a controller or anything else that access the models directly), and doing so would require:
Create a scope, and expose it thru a method in your model. That method would be the one you expose to the controller;
If you never expose your models to your controllers (so you have some kind of service layer on top of them), then you're fine. The anti-corruption layer is your service and it can access your model's scope without worrying too much about how scopes are implemented.
How about association extensions?
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :orders do
def for_user(user_id)
where(user_id: user_id)
end
end
end
Item.first.orders.for_user(current_user)
UPDATE: I'd like to point out the advantage to association extensions as opposed to class methods or scopes is that you have access to the internals of the association proxy:
proxy_association.owner returns the object that the association is a part of.
proxy_association.reflection returns the reflection object that describes the association.
proxy_association.target returns the associated object for belongs_to or has_one, or the collection of associated objects for has_many or has_and_belongs_to_many.
More details here: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#association-extensions
Instead of scopes I've just been defining class-methods, which has been working great
def self.age0 do
where("blah")
end
I use something like:
class Invoice < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :aged_0, lambda{ where("created_at IS NULL OR created_at < ?", Date.today + 30.days).joins(:owner) }
end
You can use merge method in order to merge scopes from different models.
For more details search for merge in this railscast
If you're just trying to get the user's orders, why don't you just use the relationship?
Presuming that the current user is accessible from the current_user method in your controller:
#my_orders = current_user.orders
This ensures only a user's specific orders will be shown. You can also do arbitrarily nested joins to get deeper resources by using joins
current_user.orders.joins(:level1 => { :level2 => :level3 }).where('level3s.id' => X)
The business logic is this: Users are in a Boat through a join table, I guess let's call that model a Ticket. But when a User instance wants to check who else is on the boat, there's a condition that asks if that user has permission see everyone on the Boat, or just certain people on the Boat. If a User can see everyone, the normal deal is fine: some_user.boats.first.users returns all users with a ticket for that boat. But for some users, the only people that are on the boat (as far as they're concerned) are people in, let's say the dining room. So if User's ticket is "tagged" (using an acts_as_taggable style system) with "Dining Room", the only Users returned from some_user.boats.first.users should be Users with tickets tagged "Dining Room".
Just for the record, I'm not trying to design something to be insane from the getgo - I'm trying to wedge this arbitrary grouping into a (mostly) existent system.
So we've got:
class User
has_many :tickets
has_many :boats, :through => :tickets
end
class Ticket
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :boat
end
class Boat
has_many :tickets
has_many :users, :through => :tickets
end
Initially, I thought that I could conditionally modify the virtual class like:
singleton = class << a_user_instance ; self ; end
singleton.class_eval(<<-code
has_many :tickets, :include => :tags, :conditions => ['tags.id in (?)', [#{tag_ids.to_s(:db)}]]
code
)
That gets all the way down to generating the SQL, but when generated, it generates SQL ending in:
LEFT OUTER JOIN "tags" ON ("tags"."id" = "taggings"."tag_id") WHERE ("tickets"._id = 1069416589 AND (tags.id in (5001,4502)))
I've tried digging around the ActiveRecord code, but I can't find anywhere that would prefix that 'id' in the SQL above with an underscore. I know that associations are loaded when an ActiveRecord class is loaded, and I'd assume the same with a singleton class. shrug.
I also used an alias_method_chain like:
singleton = class << a_user_instance ; self ; end
singleton.class_eval(<<-code
def tickets_with_tag_filtering
tags = Tag.find(etc, etc)
tickets_without_tag_filtering.scoped(:include => :tags, :conditions => {:'tags.id' => tags})
end
alias_method_chain :tickets, :tag_filtering
code
)
But while that approach produces the desired Tickets, any joins on those tickets use the conditions in the class, not the virtual class. some_user.boats.first.users returns all users.
Any type of comment will be appreciated, especially if I'm barking up the wrong tree with this approach. Thanks!
So a wild guess about your underscore issue is that Rails is generating the assocation code based on the context at the time of evaluation. Being in a singleton class could mess this up, like so:
"#{owner.table_name}.#{association.class.name}_id = #{association.id}"
You could get in there and define a class name property on your singleton class and see if that fixes the issue.
On the whole I don't recommend this. It creates behavior that is agonizing to track down and impossible to extend effectively. It creates a landmine in the codebase that will wound you or someone you love at a later time.
Instead, consider using a named_scope declaration:
class User
has_many :taggings, :through => :tickets
named_scope :visible_to, lambda { |looking_user|
{ :include => [ :tickets, :taggings ],
:conditions => [ "tickets.boat_id in (?) and taggings.ticket_id = tickets.id and taggings.tag_id in (?)", looking_user.boat_ids, looking_user.tag_ids ]
}
}
end
While you may have to go back and edit some code, this is much more flexible in the ways it can be used:
Boat.last.users.visible_to( current_user )
It's clear that a restriction is being placed on the find, and what the purpose of that restriction is. Because the conditions are dynamically calculated at runtime, you can deal with the next weird modification your client hits you with. Say some of their users have xray vision and clairvoyance:
class User
named_scope :visible_to, lambda { |looking_user|
if looking_user.superhuman?
{}
else
{ :include => [ :tickets, :taggings ],
:conditions => [ "tickets.boat_id in (?) and taggings.ticket_id = tickets.id and taggings.tag_id in (?)", looking_user.boat_ids, looking_user.tag_ids ]
}
end
}
end
By returning an empty hash, you can effectively nullify the effect of the scope.
Why not just grab all users on the boat and include their tags.
Then run a quick filter to include & return only the users with the same tag as the inquiring user.
What version of Rails are you using? Have you tried upgrading to see if the underscore issue is fixed? It's like it can't find the foreign key to put in as "tag_id" or somethin'.
My ruby-fu is limited, so I'm not sure how to dynamically include the correct method options at run-time.
Just to help you clarify, you have to worry about this two places. You want to filter a user's viewable users so they only see users with the same tags. Your structure is:
user <--> tickets <--> boats <--> tickets <--> users
... right?
So, you need to filter both sets of tickets down to the ones with the current_user's tags.
Maybe you just need a current_user.viewable_users() method and then filter everything through that? I'm not sure what existing functionality you've got to preserve.
Blech, I don't feel like I'm helping you at all. Sorry.
Your approach is the problem. I know it seems expedient at the moment to hack something in where you don't have to refactor the existing call sites, but I believe given time this will come back to haunt you as the source of bugs and complexity.
Sleeping dogs that lie come back to bite you hard, in my experience. Typically in the form of a future developer who doesn't know your association is "magic" and uses it assuming it's just pail ole rails. He/she likely won't even have a reason to write a test case that would expose the behavior either, which raises the odds you'll only find out about the bug when it's live in production and the client is unhappy. Is it really worth the time you're saving now?
Austinfrombostin is pointing the way. Different semantics? Different names. Rule number one is always to write code that says what it does as clearly as possible. Anything else is the path of madness.