Caching is by far the most logic-intensive part of my view code, so I would like to do fragment caching from inside a decorator, however, I cant do it.
When i do this from my decorator:
def cached_name
h.cache do
"a name here"
end
end
I get this:
You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! You might have
expected an instance of Array. The error occurred while evaluating
nil.length
I instantiate my decorator from inside a controller
#presenter = SomePresenter::new
I am using HAML for my views
How can I succesfully cache from inside my decorator, so my view can do stuff like this
= #decorator.cached_logic_heavy_stuff
UPDATE: I have created a git repo showing my issue: https://github.com/houen/presenter_caching
UPDATE: This maybe works - see the repo
include Haml::Helpers
def another_way_to_try
self.init_haml_helpers
buffer = haml_buffer.buffer
h.with_output_buffer(buffer) do
h.cache do
h.concat "i should still not be empty"
end
end
end
I'd suggest using Rails.cache directly might solve your problem; we do the same thing in our decorators with Rails 4.
def cached_name
Rails.cache.fetch(source) do
source.name # etc.
end
end
If you're using Draper, I believe you don't need to explicitly pass the view context. You will likely want to pass a model or collection to your draper present when you instantiate. Examples:
class UserDecorator < Draper::Base
decorates :user
# additional methods
end
# in the controller
#presenter = UserDecorator.new(#user) # for an instance
#presenter = UserDecorator.decorate(#users) # for a collection
I suspect the nil object error you're getting is coming from another method call that's not listed in your code.
As for fragment caching from your decorator, you'll want to use the concat helper method to get this to work inside the decorator:
# your decorator class
def cached_name
h.cache("some_cache_key") do
h.concat "a name here"
end
end
Rails' cache method tries to infer a cache key based on the view that it's being called from. Since you're not actually calling it from a view (but from inside an instance of a decorator class), I expect that it's bombing when trying to build a cache key.
You might try passing a cache key explicitly, via h.cache "your cache key" do. With a full stack trace, you can figure out where it's throwing the exception, and then work around that, as well. Without the full stack trace, it's harder to help you, though.
Edit: Looking at Rails' caching code, I think this might be a deeper issue; it's attempting to get the length of output_buffer, which isn't going to be available outside of your views' contexts (that is, within Draper). You might try adding:
def output_buffer
h.output_buffer
end
But without testing it, I'm thinking it might not work exactly as planned without some more work. This is just a rough guess - I'd be surprised if this is actually the issue, but hopefully it gets you on the right path.
The note in the source there:
# VIEW TODO: Make #capture usable outside of ERB
# This dance is needed because Builder can't use capture
indicates that this isn't a fully-solved problem, so you may need to do a little digging around in the Rails internals to make this one work.
This works:
include Haml::Helpers
def another_way_to_try
self.init_haml_helpers
buffer = haml_buffer.buffer
h.with_output_buffer(buffer) do
h.cache "some_key10", :expires_in => 10.seconds do
h.concat "i should still not be empty 2"
end
end
end
Related
I have a monkeypatched of ActiveRecord find with some business logic, for example:
# lib/core_extensions/active_record/finder_methods/finder.rb
module ActiveRecord
module FinderMethods
def find(*args)
return super if block_given?
#... business logic code => my_error_control = true
raise "My Error" if my_error_control
retorn = find_with_ids(*args)
end
end
end
retorn
I have not seen many examples like this, and this causes me a doubt:
Where should finder.rb be?
In this example, this file is in lib/core_extensions/... but if it contains business logic, I think finder.rb should lives in the folder app/core_extensions/ isn't it?
Edited, after Sergio Answer
things like this, are a bad practice?
# lib/core_extensions/nil_class/image_attributes.rb
# suport for product images attributes
class NilClass
def main_image(size,evita_video)
"/images/paperclip_missing/original/missing.png"
end
end
Where should finder.rb be?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It only matters that this code gets loaded. This mix of patching base libraries and adding business logic there looks like something that MUST be documented thoroughly (in the project's wiki or something like that). And if it is documented, then it doesn't matter. The code is where the documentation says it is.
That being out of the way, here's a design suggestion:
when user seeks a Family Family.find(params[family_id],session[:company_id]), this find will compare the company of the family result family.company witht the parameter
Why not do something like this:
family = current_company.families.find(params[:family_id])
where current_company can be defined as #current_company ||= Company.find(session[:company_id])
Here, if this company doesn't have this family, you'll get an exception.
Same effect*, only without any patching. Much more futureproof. You can even add a couple of rubocop rules to ensure that you never write a naked Family.find.
* it's not like you add that patch and rest of your code magically acquires super-powers. No. You still have to change all the finders, to pass that company id.
It's the first time I see such case :). I'd put it in app/core_extensions and check if live reloading works correctly with it. If not, I'd move it to lib/. (It's just a heuristic)
Edit:
Instead of extending NilClass I'd rather use regular NullObjects. It's really less surprising and easier to understand.
https://robots.thoughtbot.com/rails-refactoring-example-introduce-null-object
I found RailsCasts episode, and used this logic and code samples for my needs.
But one thing bothers me.
constraint looks like:
constraints(Subdomain.new) do ... end
which uses this code:
class Subdomain
def matches?(request)
....
end
end
end
And it works.
But I don't get two things. First, I do not invoke matches? anywhere, why this method is just executed on initializing Subdomain.new?
Second concern. I don't pass any parameter, but it somehow assigns request argument to actual rack request and it just works.
For example, I didn't like this syntax:
constraints(Subdomain.new) do ... end
so I decided to make it module with method subdomain(request), but as made it module, it started raising wrong number or arguments error (0 for 1).
I found out that method matches? is defined in mapper.rb, may be it is called somewhere backwards in rails, but this way it should be overwritten by my subdomain file? If not, as my matches is class method, how it works without any Subdomain instance to which it is applied?
As I said, everything works fine, but I would like to understand what exactly happens, because I don't like using something that appears david blane magic code to me.
Reading some source code of Rails mapper module didn't give me understanding.
Well, little more of reading source code gave me a clue. I found one more matches?, defined for #constraints
def matches?(req)
#constraints.all? do |constraint|
(constraint.respond_to?(:matches?) && constraint.matches?(req)) ||
(constraint.respond_to?(:call) && constraint.call(*constraint_args(constraint, req)))
end
end
So for every constraint it checks if it responds to matches? and then invokes it with rack request argument.
I've got a controller test that I'm trying to work through. Basically the controller looks like this:
before_filter :set_up_foo
def set_up_foo
...
#foo = SomeObject.create(params[:some_object_attributes])
...
end
def some_action
# reference #foo
if #foo.nil?
...
else
# this is what I want to test
...
end
end
I don't want to test the innards of the else block, not the before filter. In my case there are a TON of models objects I'd have to mock in order to actually execute the before filter. I have another test for that. I want to make sure the 'side effect' of the before filter is done...in this case that #foo gets initialized to a mock version of it.
Basically I want to do:
controller.foo = mock_foo_object
but this doesn't work. I also tried:
controller.stub!(:foo).and_return(mock_foo_object)
and though I expected (haha) this to work, it didn't. The only real feedback I get is that the #foo object is never set and as a result we got the if, not the else condition.
any help will be greatly appreciated...
So I found this solution: Instead of mocking the accessor, I can pass a block into the stub on the method that has the side effect, to DO that side effect:
controller.stub!(:set_up_foo) { controller.set_instance_variable(:#foo, #mock_foo_object) }
This has the effect of making sure the one side effect I care about actually happens. I tried this and it worked like a charm.
I'm sure this has been asked already, but I can't find the answer.
I have a Project model, which has a belongs_to relationship with my Client model. A client has a name, but a project doesn't necessarily have a client.
In my view, I've got code like this:
<%=h project.client && project.client.name %>
because if the project doesn't have a client then trying to access project.client.name causes a NoMethodError (nil doesn't have a method called name).
The question is, is it acceptable to have this kind of nil checking in the view, or should I be looking for another way around it?
Just use
project.client.try(:name)
I think its perfectly acceptable - this is view logic, you are more or less deciding whether or not to show portions of your view, based on whether there is data.
I run into this all the time, and yes it's annoying. Even when there is supposed to never be a nil, dirty data that I inherited sometimes triggers it.
Your solution is one way of handling it. You could also add a method to Project called client_name that displays the client name if it exists, but then you are linking the models together more than some people recommend.
def client_name
client && client.name
end
You could also make a helper method to do it, but you can end up writing a lot of them. :)
As mentioned by Skilldrick below, this is also useful to add a default string:
def client_name
client ? client.name : "no client"
end
You can use delegate in your Project class, so this way you will respect the Law of demeter which says that you should "talk only to your immediate friends".
project.rb
class Project
delegate :name, to: :client, prefix: true, allow_nil: true
end
So this way the project object will know where to ask about the client's name:
#You can now call
project.client_name
See more about delegate in the Rails documentation.
my hacky solution is to yield a block and rescue the error. Many would say using rescue as logic is very bad form. Just don't use this where you would actually need to know when something is nil and shouldn't be.
In application_helper.rb:
def none_on_fail
begin
return yield
rescue
return "(none entered)"
end
end
Then in the view:
<%= none_on_fail { project.client.name } %>
Then methods can be chained as deep as needed and it can be used on any method BUT it will cover up other potential problems with models/relationships/methods if they exist. I would equate it to taking out a splinter with a flamethrower. Very effective with painful consequences if used improperly.
I think these checks can usually be eliminated with a bit of thought. This has the benefit of keeping your view code cleaner, and more importantly, keeping logic out of the view layer, which is a best practice. Some templating engines don't allow any logic in the view.
There are at least a couple of scenarios. Let's say you have a show action that depends on an instance variable. I'd say if the record is not found the controller should not render the html, by redirecting or something else. If you have a loop in the view for an array, use #array.each do |a| end so that it doesn't evaluate if the array is empty. If you truly want an application default in the view, try loading it from a config file, e.g. #page_title || #{#APP_CONFIG['page_title']} (see Railscasts #85). Remember you may want to change these strings later, for example translating the UI.
Those are a couple scenarios where presence checks and usage of try can be avoided. I'd try to avoid them if possible. If you can't avoid them, I'd put the conditional checks in a view helper and add a helper unit test for it to verify (and document) both code paths.
Something like this:
class Category
SOME_CATEGORY = find_by_name("some category")
end
Category::SOME_CATEGORY
tried without a problem, but want to know if it is a bad idea, and the reasons if any..
thanks
If you don't want to hit the database each time you'll have to cache the model. There are several ways to do this, but one quick way is using Memoization. This was introduced in Rails 2.2.
class Category < ActiveRecord::Base
class << self
extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable
def named(name)
find_by_name(name)
end
memoize :named
end
end
Use it like this.
Category.named("some category") # hits the database
Category.named("some category") # doesn't hit the database
The cache should stay persistent across requests. You can reset the cache by passing true as the last parameter.
Category.named("some category", true) # force hitting the database
What do you want to do?
Maybe:
class Category
def self.some_category
Category.find_by_name("some category")
end
end
So you can call:
Category.some_category
=> <Category#2....>
It's not a terrible idea, but it's not really a good one either. It doesn't really fall in line with the way Rails does things. For one thing, you'll end up with a lot of ugly constant code. Too many ALL_CAPS_WORDS and your Ruby starts to look like C++. Bleah.
For another, it's inflexible. Are you going to make one of these constants for every category? If you add a new category two months from now, will you remember to update your Rails code, add a new constant, redeploy it and restart your server?
If it's important to you to be able to access categories very easily, and not repeat DB queries, here's a bit of metaprogramming that'll automatically look them up and create static methods like Lichtamberg's for you on first access:
def self.method_missing(category, *args) # The 'self' makes this a class method
#categories ||= {}
if (#categories[category] = find_by_name(category.to_s))
class_eval "def self.#{category.to_s}; #categories[#{category}]; end"
return #categories[category]
end
super
end
With this method in place, whenever you first call Category.ham, it'll create a class method that returns the value of find_by_name("ham") -- so that neither the query nor method_missing() runs again the next time you call it. This is pretty much the way the OpenStruct class works, BTW; look it up in the Pickaxe book if you want to learn more.
(Of course you'll still have the risk that, because these are all memoized, your Rails app won't reflect any changes you make to your category objects. This makes the assumption that changes won't happen or don't really matter. It's up to you to determine whether that assumption is valid for your app. You could always put an after_update callback in your code that resets ##categories if that's a problem; but at that point this starts to get complicated.)