I am new to Ruby on Rails and the whole MVC style of doing things. This question isn't so much technical as it is conceptual. Say I have some function myFunction that I wish to have a user execute from the View by pushing a button. Should I have this function in thew Model, or the controller?
If the function relates clearly to a particular model e.g. "placing an Order", "authenticating a User" then place it on the appropriate model and add a small amount of controller code to create/retrieve the appropriate model and call the method.
If it doesn't obviously belong on one of your models then you may want to create a separate class or module for it, and again add a small amount of controller code.
Do some Googling for "skinny controllers and fat models", this is the approach generally favoured for Rails projects. e.g. see this (old, but still useful) post from Jamis Buck, or this more recent post.
It should goes to controller's method which is using models to do some business logic (not necessary connected with persistance). Probably, you should also read about RESTful apps and routing (there is a lot of guides about it).
Controller's are just expected to have the Input and Output which is the request parameters and the response/redirect. So according to you if a user clicks a button and myFunction should come into picture. Put the call to myFunction inside the view helper and the function myFunction inside the model. So your View is also clean from code and the Skinny controller and Fat models come into picture
Related
I would like to make sure my code is properly organized/designed according to the following paradigms/patterns:
- Model View Controller
- Rails Convention over Configuration
- Skinny Controller, Fat Model
I have listed them here in the order I think is most important.
My issue
After reading several articles, in particular this one and this one too, I started to move some of the logic in my controllers, to my models.
However, I can't decide whether or not to move my searching logic (explained in depth, later) from the controller to the model, even after reading more posts/articles like these: MVC Thinking, and Model vs. Controller, Separating concerns and many more not listed here.
The scenario
View
Two pages:
1 page contains a text field and submit button which sends the user's input as an argument in params in a POST request to the second page.
The second page simply renders each neatObject in a given array, let's call it #coolList.
Controller
A method, let's call it awesomeSearch, is invoked when the second page receives a POST request. (Thanks to Rails Routing)
awesomeSearch should take the user's input, available as params[:searchString], and work with the NeatObject model to build the #coolList and make that list available for the view to render.
Model
The NeatObject model handles requests from controllers and returns neatObjects back to those controllers.
The NeatObject model defines the relationship between neatObjects and other tables in our database.
Database
These are the attributes that make up each neatObject according to our database:
id - int
description - string
address - string
date_created - timestamp
What's Missing?
How the controller works with the model to get matches for the user's input.
This is the part I am confused about. The logic itself is very simple, but I am not sure which pieces belong in the model, and which pieces belong in the controller.
Should the controller pass the search string to the model, and the model pass back the results?
Should the controller ask the model for all of the neatObjects, then only keep the ones that match?
Is the solution a little of both?
To be able to ask questions about specific bits of the logic, I'll next outline the search process with more detail.
The search logic in depth
The process involves finding neatObjects that match the search string. It would be impossible to move on without defining what we consider matches for neatObjects. To keep things very simple, we will say that:
A neatObject matches a search string if the search string is contained within its description or its address, ignoring case and leading/trailing whitespace.
This definition is not guaranteed to be permanent. There are several things that may change our definition. We may need to test against more attributes than just address and description, perhaps if the database guys add a new important attribute, or the UI guys decide users should be able to search by ID. And of course, the opposite of these scenarios would mean we need to remove an attribute from the list of attributes we are testing. There are many situations that could change our definition of a match. We could even have to add or remove logic, perhaps if it is decided that we should only test the first word in the description attribute, or perhaps if we should no longer ignore case.
Now we know what defines a match and we know that our definition may change. Now we can more concretely define the search process.
Here is an outline of the steps:
Get a reference to all neatObjects
Loop through each neatObject, putting each individual one through the match test
Test passes - add/keep neatObject in results list
Test fails - do not keep neatObject for results
Make results available to the view
I will reference these steps as I show possible implementations.
Implementation
The search functionality can easily be implemented in either the NeatObject model, or the controller serving the view.
Normally, I would just write all of the logic in the controller, but after I learned about the "Skinny controller, Fat model" design, I thought it definitely applied in this situation. This article in particular made me think to reorganize my code, after I saw the author had implemented a "search-like" function in the model. The author's function did not handle user input though, so I was wondering how it should be handled.
This is how I would have written the code before learning about "SCFM":
Search logic in controller:
#searches_controller.rb
#This is the method invoked when second page receives POST request
def search
#neatObjects = NeatObjects.all.to_a
#neatObjects.delete_if {
|neatObject| !matches?(neatObject, params[:searchString])
}
end
def matches?(neatObject, searchString)
if((neatObject.description.downcase.include? searchString.downcase) ||
(neatObject.address.downcase.include? searchString.downcase))
return true
end
return false
end
This method gets its reference to all of the neatObjects (Step 1) by calling .all() on the NeatObject model. It uses the array function delete_if to perform the match test on each neatObject, and only keeps those that pass (Step 2). Step 3 is accomplished automatically automatically since we store our results in an instance variable in the controller which serves the view.
Placing the logic in the controller is very straight-forward, but when considering the "SCFM" design pattern, it seems very illogical.
I've written another option, in which the controller sends the user's input to a function in the model, which will return the the neatObjects which match the input.
Search logic in Model
#NeatObject.rb
def self.get_matches_for(searchString)
all.to_a.delete_if { |neighborhood| !matches?(searchString, neighborhood) }
end
def self.matches?(phrase, neighborhood)
fields = [neighborhood.name, neighborhood.address]
fields.map!(&:downcase)
phrase.downcase!
fields.each do |field|
if (
(phrase.include? field) ||
(field.include? phrase)
)
return true
end
end
return false
end
This method gets the complete list of neatObjects with all() (Step 1). Just like the first method, the model method uses delete_if to remove array elements (neatObjects) that don't meet a certain criteria (passing the match test) (Step 2). In this method, the controller serving the view would call get_matches_for on the NeatObject model, and store the results in an instance variable (Step 3), like this: #neatObjects = NeatObject.get_matches_for( params[:searchString] )
I do think that the model option is cleaner, and slightly more maintanable, but I'll go more in depth in the following section.
Concerns
I can see pros and cons to both the model method and the controller method, but there are things that I'm still unsure about.
When I read over that article I've referenced several times (just like I did here), it was very logical that the model defined a function to return the recently added people.
The controller didn't have to implement the logic to determine if a person had been recently added. It makes sense that the controller shouldn't, because that is dependent on the data itself. There might be a completely different implementation of the "recency" test for messages. The recent people might include people added this week, while recent messages are only those messages sent today.
A controller should just be able to say People.find_recent or Message.find_recent and know it got the correct results.
Is it correct to say the find_recent method could also be modified to take in a time symbol, and return objects for different time periods? Ex - People.find_in_time( :before_this_month ) or Messages.find_in_time( :last_year ). Does that still follow the MVC pattern and Rails convention?
Should a controller be able to find matches for user input with NeatObject.get_matches_for( searchString )?'
I think the matching logic belongs in the model, because there are certain/specific attributes that are used in testing, and those attributes are different depending on the data. We might have different attributes for different tables, and those attributes definitely shouldn't be defined by the controller. I know the controller depends on the model, not the other way around, so the model must define those attributes, even if the rest of the logic is in the controller.
And if the model defines the attributes that are used when searching, why shouldn't it define the entire search function?
The above text explains why I think the model should handle the searching logic and expresses the majority of my questions/concerns, however I do have some opinions favoring the other option.
If the model is concerned only with the data, how can one justify passing user input to it?
If the controller doesn't handle the search logic, it still needs to send the user's input to the model. Does it clean it up before it sends it? (Removing leading/trailing whitespace and downcasing the string.) Does it just send the exact input it got from the user?
Where is the testing done to make sure the input is not malicious?
Some of my biggest questions:
Does the answer for where the logic goes change for each case?
If the search/matching process was simpler, would the code's place change? For example, if the searching was simpler:
If the only attribute being tested was the address and that was unlikely to change, would we just handle the search with the controller?
If we were making an advanced search feature, where the user decided which attributes to include in the search and also controlled some other factors, there would be a lot of user input just to define the arguments to the search function. Would that be too much logic or user input to place in the model?
In conclusion
How can I always be sure that I am putting logic in the right place (MVC)?
For my specific case, with this data and this search/match process, how should I organize the code?
What guidelines can be followed when you find a gray area, or are unsure about where logic belongs?
This is something that varies a lot between cases (each application is different) but here's what I do on my end (large sports app that searches lots of tables from many different places):
start by performing small searches with non-repeating code patterns in the controller (or rarely view)
when it turns out the code is needed in more than one or two action/view I move it to the models
I also move the code to the model when the query complexity goes above the average .find or simple .where
Like this, you don't spam your model with one-time-use methods, and at the same time don't repeat the same code over multiple controllers/actions/views
As many thinks in IT and in life, It depends of the scale and the goal.
Considerations:
1) For design: If you see you are violating DRY in your controllers many times, its probably time to move your logic to models.
2) For performance: Since controllers are loaded more than models, Logic in controller tend to performs worst.
And not less important: Unless you are doing something very trivial, and you db has a few thousands rows, do NOT use db for text search. Instead, use a search engine like Solr, ElasticSearch, Sphinx, etc.
I'm trying to better understand the Rails workflow, specifically RCAV in relation to MVC. I know that MVC is the typical structure of a Rails app and that RCAV is the standard order of building various components of the app, however, I'm a little confused about the correlation between the two.
For example, I'm assuming the routes in RCAV are what link the models with views and controller in MVC. Is this correct?
I'm also guessing that the controller and view in RCAV are the same as the controller and view in MVC and simply represent the order in which you build them. Is this correct as well?
What I'm really stuck on is the Action part of RCAV - does this represent the Model component of MVC?
Sorry if my question doesn't make sense, just trying to get a better hang of the standard Rails workflow and the order in which various components of an app are typically built. I wish it were a little more distilled i.e. "first build Model, then Views, then Controller" but this whole separate RCAV thing is confusing me a little.
To your title question, no.
To elaborate, it's kind of confusing to map out RCAV (the sequence) against MVC (the framework), but I'll see if I can clarify. It's worth noting that the concepts themselves are not as complex as they seem, it's just confusing to explain.
RCAV
(Route-Controller-Action-View)
Routes are defined in config/routes.rb. You may think of them as the coupling between an HTTP Request and a Method (a specific type of method called an Action). On the one side it defines a path (ex. "/login") and one of the HTTP verbs (ex. "GET"), and says that whenever that type of request is made to that location, to perform the appropriate action. On the other side, an action is given in the form of the name of its controller (ex. "sessions"), and the name of the method itself (ex. "new").
Controllers receive the request according to the routes (so following the above example, if a user navigated to www.example.com/login, they would wind up in the sessions controller, which would be housed in app/controllers/sessions_controller.rb). The Controller may perform a number of functions prior to (and following) the action, in the form of callbacks. Callbacks are arguably a more advanced concept than what you need to understand right now, they are an important step (and the reason I explain RCAV as "Route >> Controller >> Action >> View", not as "Route >> Controller-Action >> View").
Actions are public methods in the Controller. Again, by our above example, you'll be hitting a method named "new" in the sessions_controller when a user navigates to www.example.com/login. Actions may perform any variety of functions, and there is often interaction with the model here (for instance, you may have a session model in app/models/sessions.rb with a method named "logout", and perhaps the first thing you do when you hit the login page is ensure the user is currently logged out by calling Session.logout. This is a poor design, but a decent example). Your action must "return" in one way or another. Assuming your action is meant to be consumed by a user directly through their browser (as opposed to as, say, a JSON or XML service), you will either render a view now, or redirect_to another action.
Views are, dare I say, the "end result" of the action. If nothing is specified, the above example will end by rendering "app/views/sessions/new.html.erb" for the user (Rails defaults to rendering the view whose path matches the controller and action, but as referenced above you could name something different). In this file you will also potentially make reference to the model associated with sessions (but this time inside of ERB tags, to be compiled into HTML).
MVC
(Model-View-Controller)
Models are classes tied, generally, to tables in a database. They contain validations for their fields, class methods, and instance methods. Say your database keeps track of sessions. Then you could potentially grab a list of sessions by calling Session.all anywhere in your application. You'd probably use an action in the Sessions controller to save this list to an instance variable (maybe #sessions), which could in turn be accessed in its appropriate view (<% #sessions.each do |s| %> ... <% end %>).
Views are essentially the web pages. They can bring along their own styles and scripts, and exist in the form of HTML files with embedded ruby. They are the end point of request made to your site (unless you're hitting a service which returns something like JSON or XML instead).
Controllers contain all the actions a user may access, often prepare variables via methods from the models, and generally drop the user into a view.
In Summation
A user accesses a route. The route drops them into a specific action within a controller. The controller (in the form of callbacks) and the action (on its own) prepare data from the model (via instance variables) to be consumed by the view. The view is then rendered into the users browser.
This is a simplification, but in the most standard cases, this is how the MVC framework (and rails, specifically) functions.
I have a controller that handles CRUD operations on quizzes, called QuizController.
Then, a user can go take the current quiz (there's only one available at a time).
It's tempting to name that controller QuizController as well, and I could if it were namespaced differently. But that isn't innately descriptive enough to me.
It could be called QuizResultsController. But that's not great either.
How would you name such a controller that displays the current quiz to a user and let's them submit their answers?
The controller that handles CRUD operations for your quizzes should, by convention, be called QuizzesController, freeing up QuizController for use in the context you've described.
That said, I'd go with QuizzesController and CurrentQuizController to make the distinction greater.
You could add a #current action on QuizzesController which shows the current quiz if you didn't want to create an entire single-purpose controller.
What's the best way to render Navigation in MVC3? In my app the Controller has to decide what should be in the Navigation but as far as I know there's no way to pass a Model up to the _Layout file (where the Navigation html lives) to give it this information.
You can make the model available to your layout.
Define a base class, MyBaseModel, with the properties you want available to the layout.
Have your models subclass MyBaseModel, and ensure that you populate the properties
Have your layout specify #model MyBaseModel
Use the properties
See also this blog post where a similar problem ("we often find ourselves needing to include the same information in every page") is tackled.
Best is a relative and subjective term. I would usually go with an approach similar to druttka's answer but another option is to use RenderAction() to invoke a controller action
<div>#Html.RenderAction("action", "controller")</div>
I will offer some counterpoints to #druttka's answer. But mostly, you have to decide which trade off you want to make.
If you use a model for your view, you are now forcing 2 things:
Every view must be strongly typed
Every action must call the function to populate all levels of nav included in your view model
The first point isn't so bad, because there are very few pages in a typical non-static site which wouldn't derive from a model anyway, and its easy enough to create an empty model for those pages. The second point is much more annoying however. Each function has to instantiate it's own model, and then populate the nav properties for every level of nav provided by the model. This can be quite cumbersome, but can be fairly elegantly handled in OnActionExecuted for at least nav which is not specific to a given action.
The alternative is to add the nav to the ViewBag. This can be done whenever and does not force you to specify a model for every view, which is great for the flexibility in those cases where you do not need to specify a model. It should be noted however that the ViewBag in asp.net mvc 3 is of type dynamic, which you cannot use as a parameter in a lambda function, thus preventing you from doing something like #Html.DisplayFor(viewBag => viewBag.MainNav) in your layout, which is a real drag. You can still render partial and specify the appropriate DisplayTemplate however.
In Ruby on Rails Development (or MVC in general), what quick rule should I follow as to where to put logic.
Please answer in the affirmative - With Do put this here, rather than Don't put that there.
MVC
Controller: Put code here that has to do with working out what a user wants, and deciding what to give them, working out whether they are logged in, whether they should see certain data, etc. In the end, the controller looks at requests and works out what data (Models) to show and what Views to render. If you are in doubt about whether code should go in the controller, then it probably shouldn't. Keep your controllers skinny.
View: The view should only contain the minimum code to display your data (Model), it shouldn't do lots of processing or calculating, it should be displaying data calculated (or summarized) by the Model, or generated from the Controller. If your View really needs to do processing that can't be done by the Model or Controller, put the code in a Helper. Lots of Ruby code in a View makes the pages markup hard to read.
Model: Your model should be where all your code that relates to your data (the entities that make up your site e.g. Users, Post, Accounts, Friends etc.) lives. If code needs to save, update or summarise data related to your entities, put it here. It will be re-usable across your Views and Controllers.
To add to pauliephonic's answer:
Helper: functions to make creating the view easier. For example, if you're always iterating over a list of widgets to display their price, put it into a helper (along with a partial for the actual display). Or if you have a piece of RJS that you don't want cluttering up the view, put it into a helper.
The MVC pattern is really only concerned with UI and nothing else. You shouldn't put any complex business logic in the controller as it controls the view but not the logic. The Controller should concern itself with selecting the proper view and delegate more complex stuff to the domain model (Model) or the business layer.
Domain Driven Design has a concept of Services which is a place you stick logic which needs to orchestrate a number of various types of objects which generally means logic which doesn't naturally belong on a Model class.
I generally think of the Service layer as the API of my applications. My Services layers usually map pretty closely to the requirements of the application I'm creating thus the Service layer acts as a simplification of the more complex interactions found in the lower levels of my app, i.e. you could accomplish the same goal bypassing the Service layers but you'd have to pull a lot more levers to make it work.
Note that I'm not talking about Rails here I'm talking about a general architectural style which addresses your particular problem.
Perfect explanations here already, one very simple sentence as conclusion and easy to remember:
We need SMART Models, THIN Controllers, and DUMB Views.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ModelViewController
The Rails way is to have skinny controllers and fat models.
Do put stuff related to authorization/access control in the controller.
Models are all about your data. Validation, Relationships, CRUD, Business Logic
Views are about showing your data. Display and getting input only.
Controllers are about controlling what data goes from your model to your view (and which view) and from your view to your model. Controllers can also exist without models.
I like to think of the controller as a security guard/receptionist who directs you the customer(request) to the appropriate counter where you ask a teller (view) a question. The teller (view) then goes and gets the answer from a manager (model), who you never see. You the request then go back to the security guard/receptionist (controller) and wait until you are directed to go another teller (view) who tells you the answer the manager (model) told them in response to the other teller's (view) question.
Likewise if you want to tell the teller (view) something then largely the same thing happens except the second teller will tell you whether the manager accepted your information. It is also possible that the security guard/receptionist (controller) may have told you to take a hike since you were not authorized to tell the manager that information.
So to extend the metaphor, in my stereotyped and unrealistic world, tellers (views) are pretty but empty-headed and often believe anything you tell them, security guard/receptionists are minimally polite but are not very knowledgeable but they know where people should and shouldn't go and managers are really ugly and mean but know everything and can tell what is true and what isn't.
One thing that helps separate properly is avoiding the "pass local variables from controller to view" anti-pattern. Instead of this:
# app/controllers/foos_controller.rb:
class FoosController < ApplicationController
def show
#foo = Foo.find(...)
end
end
#app/views/foos/show.html.erb:
...
<%= #foo.bar %>
...
Try moving it to a getter that is available as a helper method:
# app/controllers/foos_controller.rb:
class FoosController < ApplicationController
helper_method :foo
def show
end
protected
def foo
#foo ||= Foo.find(...)
end
end
#app/views/foos/show.html.erb:
...
<%= foo.bar %>
...
This makes it easier to modify what gets put in "#foo" and how it is used. It increases separation between controller and view without making them any more complicated.
Well, it sort of depends upon what the logic has to deal with...
Often, it makes sense to push more things into your models, leaving controllers small. This ensures that this logic can easily be used from anywhere you need to access the data that your model represents. Views should contain almost no logic. So really, in general, you should strive to make it so that you Don't Repeat Yourself.
Also, a quick bit of google reveals a few more concrete examples of what goes where.
Model: validation requirements, data relationships, create methods, update methods, destroy methods, find methods (note that you should have not only the generic versions of these methods, but if there is something you are doing a lot, like finding people with red hair by last name, then you should extract that logic so that all you have to do is call the find_redH_by_name("smith") or something like that)
View: This should be all about formatting of data, not the processing of data.
Controller: This is where data processing goes. From the internet: "The controller’s purpose is to respond to the action requested by the user, take any parameters the user has set, process the data, interact with the model, and then pass the requested data, in final form, off to the view."
Hope that helps.
In simple terms, generally,
Models will have all the codes related to table(s), their simple or complex relationships (think them as sql queries involving multiple tables), manipulation of the data/variables to arrive at a result using the business logic.
Controllers will have code/pointers towards the relevant models for the job requested.
Views will accept the user input/interaction and display the resultant response.
Any major deviation from these will put unwanted strain on that part and the overall application performance may get impacted.
Testing, Testing ...
Put as much logic as possible in the model and then you will be able to test it properly. Unit tests test the data and the way it is formed by testing the model, and functional tests test the way it is routed or controlled by testing the controllers, so it follows that you can't test the integrity of the data unless it is in the model.
j