I feel a bit stupid but this is not working (and I expected it should work):
class MembershipCard < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :association
belongs_to :personal_record
validates :number, :presence => true
def dis
print "---------------------------- #{personal_record.as_json}---------------------"
number
end
def value
id
end
end
class PersonalRecord < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :membership_card, :dependent => :nullify
def dis
"#{name} #{surname}"
end
def val
id
end
end
print "---------------------------- #{personal_record.as_json}---------------------"
It's not printing. Any suggestion about why this is happening?
I can't access any associated model in this way and it's a disaster, basically I can't use activerecord.
I solved the problem by myself: it seems that association is used inside rails (damn me), expecially this was crashing my application. Commenting it solved the issue, so I'm going to rename models/controllers and so on.
Related
I want to change has_many association behaviour
considering this basic data model
class Skill < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :users, through: :skills_users
has_many :skills_users
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :skills, through: :skills_users, validate: true
has_many :skills_users
end
class SkillsUser < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :skill
validates :user, :skill, presence: true
end
For adding a new skill we can easily do that :
john = User.create(name: 'John Doe')
tidy = Skill.create(name: 'Tidy')
john.skills << tidy
but if you do this twice we obtain a duplicate skill for this user
An possibility to prevent that is to check before adding
john.skills << tidy unless john.skills.include?(tidy)
But this is quite mean...
We can as well change ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy#<< behaviour like
module InvalidModelIgnoredSilently
def <<(*records)
super(records.to_a.keep_if { |r| !!include?(r) })
end
end
ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy.send :prepend, InvalidModelIgnoredSilently
to force CollectionProxy to ignore transparently adding duplicate records.
But I'm not happy with that.
We can add a validation on extra validation on SkillsUser
class SkillsUser < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :skill
validates :user, :skill, presence: true
validates :user, uniqueness: { scope: :skill }
end
but in this case adding twice will raise up ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid and again we have to check before adding
or make a uglier hack on CollectionProxy
module InvalidModelIgnoredSilently
def <<(*records)
super(valid_records(records))
end
private
def valid_records(records)
records.with_object([]).each do |record, _valid_records|
begin
proxy_association.dup.concat(record)
_valid_records << record
rescue ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid
end
end
end
end
ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy.send :prepend, InvalidModelIgnoredSilently
But I'm still not happy with that.
To me the ideal and maybe missing methods on CollectionProxy are :
john.skills.push(tidy)
=> false
and
john.skills.push!(tidy)
=> ActiveRecord::RecordInvalid
Any idea how I can do that nicely?
-- EDIT --
A way I found to avoid throwing Exception is throwing an Exception!
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :skills, through: :skills_users, before_add: :check_presence
has_many :skills_users
private
def check_presence(skill)
raise ActiveRecord::Rollback if skills.include?(skill)
end
end
Isn't based on validations, neither a generic solution, but can help...
Perhaps i'm not understanding the problem but here is what I'd do:
Add a constraint on the DB level to make sure the data is clean, no matter how things are implemented
Make sure that skill is not added multiple times (on the client)
Can you show me the migration that created your SkillsUser table.
the better if you show me the indexes of SkillsUser table that you have.
i usually use has_and_belongs_to_many instead of has_many - through.
try to add this migration
$ rails g migration add_id_to_skills_users id:primary_key
# change the has_many - through TO has_and_belongs_to_many
no need for validations if you have double index "skills_users".
hope it helps you.
Maybe rookie problem, maybe not, maybe i am lack of OOT but I still can't answer why I cant get the the value of instance variable #upgrade which was assigned to true.
class OrderTemplate < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
attr_writer :upgrade #to hold upgrade process across actions
def upgrade
#upgrade || false
end
def from_time
p self.inspect
------------------------> they looks same
p self.upgrade
------------------------> is true as is supposed to be
p self.user.order_template.inspect
------------------------> they looks same
p self.user.order_template.upgrade
------------------------> is false but i am expecting true
self.user.has_time_bonus?
end
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :order_template
def has_time_bonus?
p self.order_template.upgrade
------------------------> is false but i am expecting true
end
end
Please smack me.
The short version is "activerecord doesn't have an identity map" (or at least, it's not enabled). If you do
an_order_template.user.order_template
then user.order_template causes the OrderTemplate to be loaded from the database a second time, so you have two distinct in memory objects representing the same database row. The second copy won't have any in memory only changes (including your instance variable).
You can probably work around this by doing
class OrderTemplate < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user, :inverse_of => :order_template
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :order_template, :inverse_of => :user
end
the :inverse_of option helps Active Record join the dots so that when you do
an_order_template.user.order_template
rails knows that two order templates are the same object.
Here is my scenario:
A model called Course has many CourseCodes. A CourseCode belongs to a Course.
A CourseCode can't be created without Course and a Course can't be created without at least one CourseCode.
class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :course_codes
validate :existence_of_code
private
def existence_of_code
unless course_codes.any?
errors[:course_codes] << "missing course code"
end
end
end
class CourseCode < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :course
validates_presence_of :course
end
The whole scenario feels a bit like catch 22.
Is there a way to create both on the same time?
I'm using Rails 3.2
Solved the problem by using accepts_nested_attributes_for.
Nested attributes allow you to save attributes on associated records through the parent. By default nested.
class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :course_codes, inverse_of: :course
validate :existence_of_code
accepts_nested_attributes_for :course_codes
private
def existence_of_code
unless course_codes.any?
errors[:course_codes] << "missing course code"
end
end
end
class CourseCode < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :course, inverse_of: :course_codes
validates_presence_of :course
end
Used like this.
Course.create!({
course_codes_attributes: [{ code: "TDA123" }],
# ...
})
Looks good to me. Removing the validates_presence_of :course might make things easier on you, too, as it will tend to get in the way an not add much.
When you create a course, do it like this:
Course.create course_codes: [CourseCode.new(...), CourseCode.new(...)]
ActiveRecord will figure things out.
You could add an unless to whichever model you would plan to create first. For instance:
class CourseCode < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :course
validates_presence_of :course, :unless => lambda { Course.all.empty? }
end
I have a vacation approval model that has_many :entries is there a way that if I destroy one of those entries to have the rest destroyed? I also want to send one email if they are, but not one for each entry. Is there a way to observe changes to the collection as a whole?
A callback probably isn't a good choice because:
class Entry < ActiveRecord::Base
def after_destroy
Entry.where(:vacation_id => self.vacation_id).each {|entry| entry.destroy}
end
end
would produce some bad recursion.
It could be that you should do it in the controller:
class EntriesController < ApplicationController
def destroy
#entry = Entry.find(params[:id])
#entries = Entry.where(:vacation_id => #entry.vacation_id).each {|entry| entry.destroy}
#send email here
...
end
end
You can use the before_destroy callback.
class VacationRequest < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :entries
end
class Entry < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :vacation_request
before_destroy :destroy_others
def destroy_others
self.vacation_request.entries.each do |e|
e.mark_for_destruction unless e.marked_for_destruction?
end
end
end
Definitely test that code before you use it on anything important, but it should give you some direction to get started.
I think this ought to work:
class Entry < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :vacation_request, :dependent => :destroy
# ...
end
class VacationApproval < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :entries, :dependent => :destroy
# ...
end
What should happen is that when an Entry is destroyed, the associated VacationApproval will be destroyed, and subsequently all of its associated Entries will be destroyed.
Let me know if this works for you.
So What i ended up doing is
class VacationApproval < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :entries , :conditions => {:job_id => Job.VACATION.id }, :dependent => :nullify
class Entry < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :vacation_approval_id ,:if => lambda {|entry| entry.job_id == Job.VACATION.id} , :message => "This Vacation Has Been Canceled. Please Delete These Entries."
and then
#entries.each {|entry| entry.destroy if entry.invalid? }
in the index action of my controller.
and
`raise "Entries are not valid, please check them and try again ( Did you cancel your vacation? )" if #entries.any? &:invalid?`
in the submit action
The problem with deleting the others at the same time is if my UI makes 10 Ajax calls to selete 10 rows, and it deletes all of them the first time I end up with 9 unahandled 404 responses, which was undesirable.
Since I don't care it they remain there, as long as the Entry cannot be submitted its OK.
This was the easiest / safest / recursion friendly way for me, but is probably not the best way. Thanks for all your help!
To anyone curious/ seeking info
I ended up solving this later by setting The Vacation APProval model like this
class VacationApproval < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :entries , :conditions => {:job_id => Job.VACATION.id }, :dependent => :delete_all
end
and My Entry Model like this
class Entry < ActiveRecord::Base
after_destroy :cancel_vacation_on_destory
def cancel_vacation_on_destory
if !self.vacation_approval.nil?
self.vacation_approval.destroy
end
end
end
Using :delete_all does not process callbacks, it just deletes them
I've run into a situation that I am not quite sure how to model.
EDIT: The code below now represent a working solution. I am still interested in nicer looking solutions, though.
Suppose I have a User class, and a user has many services. However, these services are quite different, for example a MailService and a BackupService, so single table inheritance won't do. Instead, I am thinking of using polymorphic associations together with an abstract base class:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :services
end
class Service < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id, :implementation_id, :implementation_type
validates_uniqueness_of :user_id, :scope => :implementation_type
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :implementation, :polymorphic => true, :dependent => :destroy
delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :implementation
end
#Base class for service implementations
class ServiceImplementation < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id, :on => :create
#Virtual attribute, allows us to create service implementations in one step
attr_accessor :user_id
has_one :service, :as => :implementation
after_create :create_service_record
#Tell Rails this class does not use a table.
def self.abstract_class?
true
end
#Name of the service.
def name
self.class.name
end
#Returns the user this service
#implementation belongs to.
def user
unless service.nil?
service.user
else #Service not yet created
#my_user ||= User.find(user_id) rescue nil
end
end
#Sets the user this
#implementation belongs to.
def user=(usr)
#my_user = usr
user_id = usr.id
end
protected
#Sets up a service object after object creation.
def create_service_record
service = Service.new(:user_id => user_id)
service.implementation = self
service.save!
end
end
class MailService < ServiceImplementation
#validations, etc...
def common_service_method
puts "MailService implementation of common service method"
end
end
#Example usage
MailService.create(..., :user => user)
BackupService.create(...., :user => user)
user.services.each do |s|
puts "#{user.name} is using #{s.name}"
end #Daniel is using MailService, Daniel is using BackupService
Notice that I want the Service instance to be implictly created when I create a new service.
So, is this the best solution? Or even a good one? How have you solved this kind of problem?
I don't think your current solution will work. If ServiceImplementation is abstract, what will the associated classes point to? How does the other end of the has_one work, if ServiceImplementation doesn't have a pk persisted to the database? Maybe I'm missing something.
EDIT: Whoops, my original didn't work either. But the idea is still there. Instead of a module, go ahead and use Service with STI instead of polymorphism, and extend it with individual implementations. I think you're stuck with STI and a bunch of unused columns across different implementations, or rethinking the services relationship in general. The delegation solution you have might work as a separate ActiveRecord, but I don't see how it works as abstract if it has to have a has_one relationship.
EDIT: So instead of your original abstract solution, why not persist the delgates? You'd have to have separate tables for MailServiceDelegate and BackupServiceDelegate -- not sure how to get around that if you want to avoid all the null columns with pure STI. You can use a module with the delgate classes to capture the common relationships and validations, etc. Sorry it took me a couple of passes to catch up with your problem:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :services
end
class Service < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :service_delegate, :polymorphic => true
delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :service_delegate
end
class MailServiceDelegate < ActiveRecord::Base
include ServiceDelegate
def name
# implement
end
def common_service_method
# implement
end
end
class BackupServiceDelegate < ActiveRecord::Base
include ServiceDelegate
def name
# implement
end
def common_service_method
# implement
end
end
module ServiceDelegate
def self.included(base)
base.has_one :service, :as => service_delegate
end
def name
raise "Not Implemented"
end
def common_service_method
raise "Not Implemented"
end
end
I think following will work
in user.rb
has_many :mail_service, :class_name => 'Service'
has_many :backup_service, :class_name => 'Service'
in service.rb
belongs_to :mail_user, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id', :conditions=> is_mail=true
belongs_to :backup_user, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id', :conditions=> is_mail=false