I've finally started making a Rails app from scratch and I'm getting the hang of it, but the only problem is that making all the models/controllers is getting really repetitive and totally throwing the whole DRY concept out of the window as I'm basically copying controllers and renaming them/adding/disabling fields. I have:
Projects
People
Tasks
Messages
etc and the first three need to pretty much have the same layout and CRUD. Is the only way of not having to manually create all of the actions/views each time scaffolding? If so, what other things does scaffolding generate that I need to be aware of. I've been cautious of using it in the past because I wanted to know how my application worked in the tutorials.
In my opinion scaffolding is not for new rails programmers, it should only be used after you figured out rails yourself and with a criticizing approach. It may generate whole files that you have no need, define unneeded routes etc...
You can have a look at the full details of what scaffold creates here
As for the repetitive controllers you are making I could suggest using the gem InheritedResources which eliminates a lot of this duplication (at least while you are at the basic CRUD controller operations)
InheritedResources sets the basic controller index/show/destroy/create/edit actions for you, all you have to do is to inherit from it using:
class ProjectsController < InheritedResources::Base
end
In case you have to, you can override actions by defining them yourself.
It's an excellent point. You generally want to keep your controllers as thin as possible, and certainly thinner than what the scaffolding gives you.
The way I like to think of the scaffolding is that it's good to use for your first feature in a new Rails app as an example of the current best practices and things you might want to know about. After that, however, write your controllers yourself, and factor out any duplication.
For additional ideas, you might want to read/watch...
Objects on Rails
Hexagonal Rails
Architecture the Lost Years
Related
I've been looking at Administrate source code and would like to know if it's a good practice or not the use of a generic controller and what implications it would have, like code complexity, performance degradation, etc.
Sometime ago, there was a gem inherited_resources that provide this feature, but since Rails 3.0 or 3.1 has been said we no longer need them.
So, since I have some very simple models (with only two or three fields) I could create a generic view and controller to manipulate them and save a lot of lines of "duplicated" code. Although I'm afraid, by avoiding repetition I could be creating another monster.
I've been looking for a Rails way to do this, but failed, so I would thanks some advice.
Note: I'm not looking to implement or use an admin dashboard, but use in my application instead
All Rails admin-panel implementations will make you hurt when you will try to make something more complex than stupid simple CRUD-application. I recomend you not to use such solutions. I had experiece in usage three different Rails's admin-panels and all of them had bad design and a lot of limitations. They are hard to mantain and extend their functionality.
I am new to ruby on rails and I am working on a web application written by ruby on rails. It has more than 10 models and I need to add some new attributes to some of the models as well as new methods and views. I also will need to remove or enhance some of the functionality. I know that I would need to generate new migrations and from there add/remove new columns. Then in controllers, add/modify methods, and update the views.
I wanted to know what would be the best steps (and in which order) for doing the above tasks. Also, do I need to change other files in folders like test or any other folder? What things should I consider to minimize the troubles later?
Thanks in Advance.
Since you are new to rails, the first thing you should do is to read through the getting started guide. This will help you understand the fundamentals of the rails framework and the application you inherited. After that, there are several other guides worth reading (from the same site) that may be directly applicable to the work you are doing.
Another incredibly helpful resource is railscasts. Some of these are outdated, but they are still a great starting place and can help introduce you to both new, powerful gems and rails techniques to get the work done faster and better.
As to your specific question, rails is built on an MVC architecture (meaning Model Views Controllers). It is in your best interest to try and follow this practice whenever possible. Reading up on this will clarify some of your questions as well.
When you run a migration, you will be modifying your database. The changes are viewable in the database schema (which should never be modified by hand, always modify it through migrations). This will add attributes to your models whose table you modified. In the controllers, you will add logic to deal with all of these things and the views will present the data to your users (or allow users to enter data). Asking which order is best is probably rather opinion based, but I would say you should modify the tables (run needed migrations) first. This way you can then generate the logic to deal with the new attributes. I would then create the controller logic and finally the views.
You also ask what other files need to be changed. This is heavily dependent on your system. At a base level, you should definitely be writing tests to support the logic you are generating (and many developers will advocate that you should do this before you write the other logic, a process called Test Driven Development).
TL;DR: Read the guides, work through a basic tutorial, and watch some Railscasts. This should get you up to speed on the process and best practices that go along with rails development.
Like most rails folks my restful controllers stick to a very consistent pattern, and any changes are rarely more than an extra line or two.
I like to test (using RSpec) fairly thoroughly, and that includes assigns, responds, redirects etc in controller tests.
The thing is, 75% of my controller specs follow the exact same pattern, and an obvious step seems to be to refactor them into a method/set of methods that I can call from each spec....either with a single (for example) 'restful_controller_specs' call, or individual 'restful_index_specs', 'restful_show_specs' etc for actions if the resource isn't completely standard.
And yet, when looking at other people's projects, from what I can see nobody else really seems to do that.
So in short, am I missing a good reason as to why not to agressively refactor restful controller specs?
I think most rails developers have learned programming by learning rails, which is not the ideal way to learn how to program, so things like refactoring are not a concept they have learned or encountered. Many people don't realise that files like config/routes.rb and db/migrate/* are just ruby code, and you can add loops and arrays and classes and subclasses into them as you need, just like any ruby program.
To all the rails coders out there: learn ruby! learn it well! It's a real programming language! Rails is made entirely of ruby.
I have been spending some time creating what I called a framework.
It was aimed at the creation of quiz likes games. It was supposed to have two players syncronized and present them a question to solve, etc.
I would like it to be fully customizable so I tried to develop components that can be put in or out of the pages. In the end the elements became slim ruby methods to add a whole bunch of Javascript and CSS to the pages.
Still the Javascript needs to connect to Ruby so methods supporting it are created but they will only be present when the component is present. Some components depend on one another making everything overly complex.
And after this attempt I wonder, is there is not a better and easier way to make a framework aimed to one kind of application on RoR? Or is the concept flawed or RoR in some way flawed?
Ruby on Rails is a framework on its own accord and is "opinionated software". This means that the writers of Rails looked at what would make most sense for creating a web application to them. Many people support the original developers views and so use Rails for their projects as well.
I think your concept of creating a quiz is a good one, but first you need to understand the rails stack. Depending on what you need exactly, you can create either an engine, plugin or whatever.
What I have seen a lot is that you specify what you need in your controller. (How you do that is up to you). All that information is stored in a class variable and transferred to the view where you can render everything you need with some helpers. The hard part is making it all generic enough to be reusable.
But, maybe Rails isn't the right tool for you. Maybe you need something more lightweight like Merb or even Sinatra.
There is no 'flaw' in Rails. Rails is not the 10**1000-in-one tool Java is. It's a framework that tries to do one way very good in a particular way. I think Rails can be the right tool for you, but you need to be skilled enough to wield the tool :)
I love scaffolding and it extremely helpful for prototyping. But Should we use scaffolding for developing application as such?
The name "scaffolding" is sort of a misnomer in Rails now (post 2.0). The structure generated through scaffolding generator is more of a base application to build on, rather than a "prototype" that you throw away later.
At least, if you are designing your application to be RESTful, you will find yourself keeping most of the scaffold generator produced controller and model code, while adding more logic to them. You will perhaps replace the views eventually while keeping bits and pieces of Ruby code in them.
There is no harm in using scaffold to kick-start development of your application. However, if you are a newbie you need to understand how stuff can be done without it. Scaffold is a tool for rapid prototype development in rails and can be used if you can alter it to suit your requirements quickly.
i use it a lot
i strt off with scaffolding and then gradually replace it with custom code; it's a great way to get something up and running pretty quick.
Actually It's depends on your requirements. When we consider about the scaffold it will generate CRUD(Create, Read, Update and Delete) operations instantly. So if you need to remove some of operations its really easy if you coded it manually. But that also can be done by using scaffold also. Just you have to remove those methods only.
So it's your choice whether you use it or not
I have read some books,the author all told me that a for developer will not use it in they business project.So I am not using it in my project any time.But it is only my options,it is up to you.