Good day, i'm new to ruby. I want to know how to run a parent method from a method of a child class ?
in java it would be like
class Child
..
def something_else
super.something
end
end
and in php
parent::method_name();
And could you tell me how to do it in Ruby?
found only this, and it's kind of ugly using alias_method_chain
as Taiki suggested the comment in another thread stated
class B < A
alias :super_a :a
def a
b()
end
def b
super_a()
end
end
hope there are other ways...
UPDATE:
at long last, call super() instead of super_a(). not sure what it does completely though
Related
I try to find how to best way implement chain of methods in Ruby( Rails application)
like this
class Foo
attr_accessor :errors
attr_accessor :shared_params
def initialize(..)
..
end
def call
check_params
calc_smthing
write_in_db
end
prviate
def check_params
..
end
def calc_smthing
..
end
def write_in_db
..
end
end
main ideas:
if something fail( or not fail but return false) in some step others steps doesnt call,
of course I dont want to add multiple ifs to check state and think about how implement it in one place
I need to save errors
It would be great to find way to share params between methods.
I can write in simple( ugly) way with ifs
but I try to find more elegant way or pattern because problem not so specific I think.
Thanks in advance.
Save errors and shared attributes to variables (how you do it now). Unite methods to chain of methods:
def call
check_params && calc_smthing && write_in_db
end
def valid?
errors.blank?
end
I have a table of statuses, each of which have a name attribute. Currently I can do:
FooStatus.find_by_name("bar")
And that's fine. But I'm wondering if I could do:
FooStatus.bar
So I have this approach:
class FooStatus < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
if self.allowed_statuses.include?(meth.to_s.titleize)
self.where("name = ?", meth.to_s.titleize).first
else
super(meth, *args, &block)
end
end
def self.allowed_statuses
self.pluck(:name)
end
end
The above code works, but it leads to the following weird behavior:
FooStatus.respond_to?(:bar) => false
FooStatus.bar => #<FooStatus name: 'bar'>
That's not great, but if I try to implement respond_to?, I get a recursion problem
class FooStatus < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
if self.allowed_statuses.include?(meth.to_s.titleize)
self.where("name = ?", meth.to_s.titleize).first
else
super(meth, *args, &block)
end
end
def self.allowed_statuses
self.pluck(:name)
end
def self.respond_to?(meth, include_private = false)
if self.allowed_statuses.include?(meth.to_s.titleize)
true
else
super(meth)
end
end
end
And that gets me:
FooStatus.bar => ThreadError: deadlock; recursive locking
Any ideas on getting method_missing and respond_to to work together?
I agree with Philip Hallstrom's suggestion. If you know allowed_statuses when the class is built, then just loop through the list and define the methods explicitly:
%w(foo bar baz).each do |status|
define_singleton_method(status) do
where("name = ?", status.titleize).first
end
end
…or if you need that list of statuses elsewhere in the code:
ALLOWED_STATUSES = %w(foo bar baz).freeze
ALLOWED_STATUSES.each do |status|
define_singleton_method(status) do
where("name = ?", status.titleize).first
end
end
Clearer, shorter, and far less prone to future breakage and weird rabbit hole conflicts with ActiveRecord like the one you're in.
You can do really cool things with method_missing and friends, but it's not the first approach to go to when doing metaprogramming. Explicit is usually better when possible.
I also agree with Philip's concernt about creating conflicts with built-in methods. Having a hard-coded list of statuses prevents that from going too far, but you might consider a convention like FooStatus.named_bar instead of FooStatus.bar if that list is likely to grow or change.
I don't know if I'd recommend your approach... seems too magical to me and I worry about what happens when you have a status with a name of 'destroy' or some other method you might legitimately want to call (or that Rails' calls internally that you aren't aware of).
But... instead of mucking with method missing, I think you'd be better off extending the class and automatically defining the methods by looping through allowed_statuses and creating them. This will make respond_to? work. And you could also check to make sure it's not already defined somewhere else...
Use a scope.
class FooStatus < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :bar, where(:name => "bar")
# etc
end
Now, you can do FooStatus.bar which will return an ActiveRelation object. If you expect this to return a single instance, you could do FooStatus.bar.first or if many FooStatus.bar.all, or you could put the .first or .all on the end of the scope in which case it'll return the same thing as the finder.
You can also define a scope with a lambda if the input isn't constant (not always "bar"). Section 13.1 of this guide has an example
I am PHP dev and at the moment I am learning Rails (3) and of course - Ruby. I don't want to believe in magic and so I try to understand as much as I can about things that happen "behind" Rails. What I found interesting are the method calls like has_one or belongs_to in ActiveRecord models.
I tried to reproduce that, and came with naive example:
# has_one_test_1.rb
module Foo
class Base
def self.has_one
puts 'Will it work?'
end
end
end
class Model2 < Foo::Base
has_one
end
Just running this file will output "Will it work?", as I expected.
While searching through rails source I found responsible function: def has_one(association_id, options = {}).
How could this be, because it is obviously an instance (?) and not a class method, it should not work.
After some researching I found an example that could be an answer:
# has_one_test_2.rb
module Foo
module Bar
module Baz
def has_one stuff
puts "I CAN HAS #{stuff}?"
end
end
def self.included mod
mod.extend(Baz)
end
end
class Base
include Bar
end
end
class Model < Foo::Base
has_one 'CHEEZBURGER'
end
Now running has_one_test_2.rb file will output I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER. If I understood this well - first thing that happens is that Base class tries to include Bar module. On the time of this inclusion the self.included method is invoked, which extends Bar module with Baz module (and its instance has_one method). So in the essence has_one method is included (mixed?) into Base class. But still, I don't fully get it. Object#extend adds the method from module but still, I am not sure how to reproduce this behaviour using extend. So my questions are:
What exactly happened here. I mean, still don't know how has_one method become class method? Which part exactly caused it?
This possibility to make this method calls (which looks like configuration) is really cool. Is there an alternative or simpler way to achieve this?
You can extend and include a module.
extend adds the methods from the module as class methods
A simpler implementation of your example:
module Bar
def has_one stuff
puts "I CAN HAS #{stuff}?"
end
end
class Model
extend Bar
has_one 'CHEEZBURGER'
end
include adds the methods from the module as instance methods
class Model
include Bar
end
Model.new.has_one 'CHEEZBURGER'
Rails uses this to dynamically add methods to your class.
For example you could use define_method:
module Bar
def has_one stuff
define_method(stuff) do
puts "I CAN HAS #{stuff}?"
end
end
end
class Model
extend Bar
has_one 'CHEEZBURGER'
end
Model.new.CHEEZBURGER # => I CAN HAS CHEEZBURGER?
I commend you for refusing to believe in the magic. I highly recommend you get the Metaprogramming Ruby book. I just recently got it and it was triggering epiphanies left and right in mah brainz. It goes over many of these things that people commonly refer to as 'magic'. Once it covers them all, it goes over Active Record as an example to show you that you now understand the topics. Best of all, the book reads very easily: it's very digestible and short.
Yehuda went through some alternatives on way to Rails3: http://yehudakatz.com/2009/11/12/better-ruby-idioms/
Moreover, you can use a (usually heavily abused, but sometimes quite useful) method_missing concept:
class Foo
def method_missing(method, *arg)
# Here you are if was some method that wasn't defined before called to an object
puts "method = #{method.inspect}"
puts "args = #{arg.inspect}"
return nil
end
end
Foo.new.abracadabra(1, 2, 'a')
yields
method = :abracadabra
args = [1, 2, "a"]
Generally, this mechanism is quite often used as
def method_missing(method, *arg)
case method
when :has_one
# implement has_one method
when :has_many
# ...
else
raise NoMethodError.new
end
end
I have a Rails app that repeatedly talks to another Web server through a wrapper, and I'd like to stick the wrapper in a Singleton class so it's not recreated for every request. Easy enough, I thought:
class AppWrapper < Wrapper
include Singleton
end
...
wrapper = AppWrapper.instance "url"
Only it doesn't work:
wrong number of arguments (0 for 1)
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/singleton.rb:94:in `initialize'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/singleton.rb:94:in `new'
/usr/lib/ruby/1.8/singleton.rb:94:in `instance'
Wrapper.initialize needs an argument, and apparently it's not getting passed through, since line 94 in question says
#__instance__ = new # look Ma, no argument
How do I work around this? Redefining initialize in AppWrapper doesn't seem to help, and
mucking around with Wrapper to separate "set URL" from "initialize" seems suboptimal.
Passing argument to singleton
class Parameterized_Singleton
def initialize(a)
#pdf = a
puts #pdf
end
def self.instance(p)
begin
##instance =Parameterized_Singleton.new(p)
private_class_method :new
rescue NoMethodError
# return ##instance # or you can return previous object
puts "Object Already Created"
exit
end
return ##instance
end
def scanwith(b)
puts "scan"
end
def show_frequence_distribution
puts "fd"
end
def show_object_number(a)
puts "no"
end
end
Parameterized_Singleton.instance(20).show_object_number(10)
Parameterized_Singleton.instance(10).show_object_number(20)
Are you sure you need a singleton and not a factory . Refer this
I asked this question while I was still getting my head around Ruby, and it seems so naive now. The easy solution is to just store the Wrapper object in a member variable and use ||= to initialize it only if it hasn't been set yet:
class WrapperUserClass
def initialize
#wrapper = nil # Strictly speaking unnecessary, but it's a bit clearer this way
end
def wrapper
#wrapper ||= Wrapper.new(foobar)
end
def do_something
wrapper.booyakasha
end
end
Since you mention something about editing Wrapper as a solution, can't you just use Wrapper directly and do this?
class Wrapper; include Singleton; end
If not, you could use something like this, which will just make sure AppWrapper.new isn't called more than once:
class AppWrapper
def self.new(*args)
class << app_wrapper = Wrapper.new(*args)
include Singleton
end
app_wrapper
end
end
If you need the singleton "Klass.instance" method, you'll have to take either take out the parameter in Wrapper#initialize, or just redefine Singleton#instance to take arguments optionally and passes them to the call to new on line 94.
I am trying to DRY up my code a bit so I am writing a method to defer or delegate certain methods to a different object, but only if it exists. Here is the basic idea: I have Shipment < AbstractShipment which could have a Reroute < AbstractShipment. Either a Shipment or it's Reroute can have a Delivery (or deliveries), but not both.
When I call shipment.deliveries, I want it to check to see if it has a reroute first. If not, then simply call AbstractShipment's deliveries method; if so, delegate the method to the reroute.
I tried this with the simple code below:
module Kernel
private
def this_method
caller[0] =~ /`([^']*)'/ and $1
end
end
class Shipment < AbstractShipment
...
def deferToReroute
if self.reroute.present?
self.reroute.send(this_method)
else
super
end
end
alias_method :isComplete?, :deferToReroute
alias_method :quantityReceived, :deferToReroute
alias_method :receiptDate, :deferToReroute
end
The Kernel.this_method is just a convenience to find out which method was called. However, calling super throws
super: no superclass method `deferToReroute'
I searched a bit and found this link which discusses that this is a bug in Ruby 1.8 but is fixed in 1.9. Unfortunately, I can't upgrade this code to 1.9 yet, so does anyone have any suggestions for workarounds?
Thanks :-)
Edit: After a bit of looking at my code, I realized that I don't actually need to alias all of the methods that I did, I actually only needed to overwrite the deliveries method since the other three actually call it for their calculations. However, I would still love to know y'all's thoughts since I have run into this before.
Rather than using alias_method here, you might be better served by hard-overriding these methods, like so:
class Shipment < AbstractShipment
def isComplete?
return super unless reroute
reroute.isComplete?
end
end
if you find you are doing this 5-10 times per class, you can make it nicer like so:
class Shipment < AbstractShipment
def self.deferred_to_reroute(*method_names)
method_names.each do |method_name|
eval "def #{method_name}; return super unless reroute; reroute.#{method_name}; end"
end
end
deferred_to_reroute :isComplete?, :quantityReceived, :receiptDate
end
Using a straight eval offers good performance characteristics and allows you to have a simple, declarative syntax for what you are doing within your class definition.