I have a need for a certain model to contain a reference to a document. Most of the model could be stored in postgres. The model is for a "level" in a game. I'd like to store the level data itself inside of a document, which makes more sense than making a complex tree in sql.
I am able to use postgres with mongoid installed; however, after installing the mongoid gem I seem to only be able to scaffold mongoid (non active record) documents.
The problem is that I have references to other tables, and I don't neccesarily know how to link that up within a mongoid model.
Questions:
How can I force scaffolding to occur with active record instead of mongoid or vice versa. Edit: partly answered here: Using Active Record generators after Mongoid installation? (2nd answer works, but I don't know how to go back and forth easily)
Is there an easy way to reference a document from an active record model (I know the documentation said don't mix them, but it is ideal for what I am trying to do).
If it is not possible to mix them, then how should I make a document be referenced from a postgres/active record table. In other words how can I get both pieces of data at the same time?
Thanks!
Regarding your first question, the ideal solution would be something along the lines of the first answer in the referenced post. However, instead of a generating a migration, generate a model instead. So when you want an Active Record model simply run:
rails g active_record:model
As for your second and third questions, to associate an Active Record model with a Mongoid document simply store the ObjectId as a string in the model. Then, when you get retrieve a record make a new ObjectId out of the string and use that to query for the related document.
You can create object ids out of the strings like this:
BSON::ObjectId.from_string("object_id_string")
There isn't really an easy way to easily follow intra-orm relations when mixing and matching between ActiveRecord and Mongoid though so I'm afraid that will have to be done via Ruby code.
The models you define in rails either extend one ORM's base class or the other and they don't know about one another. There may be projects out there that act as a layer on top of these ORMs but I am not familiar with any that exist at the moment.
Related
I was using this command to create a model class "Listing". However, I was interested in knowing the relationship between the datatypes of the model and the datatypes of the underlying database. In this case, it is PostgreSQL. So when I type this command:
rails generate scaffold Listing name:string
I want to know what are the possible values I can use to describe the types. What is that dependent on? The underlying database? If so then what happens if the underlying database changes later? Also, where can I get a list of the types I can use here and their capacity with an underlying db of PostgreSQL?
That command actually creates migrations for creating tables, etc, on the DB, so that's where you should check the types supported.
I would copy/paste here but I think there is no need to.
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/migrations.html#supported-types
UPDATE
The link to the docs does not contain the information anymore. Go to this question Rails 4: List of available datatypes for the full list
I have a database with several tables, each one containing columns that may not follow the rails naming convention.
Is there a tool existing to create the ActiveRecord models from those tables or do I need to do this at hand, one by one ?
If I create the ActiveRecord model for one table by hand, would this be ok though ? (no hidden DB identifier needed on top of it ?)
UPDATE
I have tried magicmodels but cannot have it working (it has been a while since it was last modified) and does not seem to be compatible with rails 3.2
What I tried then:
- change the database.yml so it points towards my existing Postresql database
- manually create my models such as:
# app/models/user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
end
- run the console and tried
User.all
=> I end up with an error saying that contant User was not initialized.
Doesn't the console import the model automatically ? Or is that linked to the fact the configuration I did is not correct ?
http://magicmodels.rubyforge.org/magic_model_generator/ may be what you're looking for. I haven't heard of many tools that give this functionality, though, as many rails apps are designed from scratch instead of given a legacy db and then creating the models from that.
You can easily create models by hand and map them to pretty much any db table. Models have a "set_table_name 'name'" that lets you over-write the rails default convention of a single model mapping to a plural db table name.
ActiveRecord works OK with legacy databases. I did a back-end system that didn't use Rails with ActiveRecord as my ORM. "ActiveRecord Without Rails" got me started. "Using ActiveRecord outside Rails" is also useful. Search Google for "use activerecord without rails" and you'll find even more.
You don't need a fully fleshed out model. Just use a base class for the tables you want and ActiveRecord will query the database for what it needs. It won't know about table relationships, but for general queries it'll do fine. Build the relationships as you go and need them.
All of the tutorials I've seen so far for RoR have shown me generating models like:
rails generate User name:string placeofbirth:string
This generates a class for the model, and only actually references an attribute if I apply a validation of some kind.
So my question is, how do I use a 'code' first approach when creating my models. Or is it the rails way to just right down on paper the attributes you want, run the generate command with each attribute you want and it's type, then run the rake db:migrate command?
I'd love some more proven patterns on this subject because so far the way I've seen seems too empty.
Yes, this is the rails way- migration comes first and generates the code and the database- and the model class inspects the database to see what fields are there and make accessible via methods.
You can do gem install annotate_models if you want to get some comments in your model class with the attribute names and types.
See here for an example: https://github.com/ctran/annotate_models
Rails uses an active record pattern for models which basically means that a model object will automatically map each DB column to an attribute so you don't have to specify all attributes in the model. It's a feature, but I agree that it might not be perfect for everyone. If you're using Rails 3 it should be easy to use another ORM of your choice if ActiveRecord's approach doesn't suit you. Here are some alternative ORMs that you could use.
Usually when you are developing some database backed web application, you know the database design(name of the tables, name of the columns in those tables and associations between different tables) beforehand.
Rails, as mentioned by maarons in his answer, uses Active Record pattern. Your models are classes that represent a table in your database, an instance of your model class a row in that table and different attributes of an object represent values under different columns in the same table.
When you create a model, usually, you are creating a class that represents one of the tables in your database. And while you are creating a model, you are also going to create a table in your database. That means knowing the name of the table and columns within that table.
So to answer your question, you must know all the columns, required for the time being, that will be in your tables. And hence available as attribute methods for your model objects. You specify these columns to added in the table in the migration generated by rails generator while generating this model. This is what usually everyone does.
You can take a code first approach by creating a class, without running the rails model generator,under app/models/ but not inheriting it from ActiveRecord::Base. As you move forward in your development, you can generate migrations by $ rails generate migration MigrationName and creating table and adding columns using [add_column][2]to that table as required. Once you have created a table for this model, you will have to inherit that model from ActiveRecord::Base so that you can get all the Rails magic in your application.
I'm trying to make objects belong to other objects of the same class by adding a parent_id attribute to the object so active record can associate them with each other in a hierarchical manner.
I know I can just write an instance method to do a find and get them, but I want to know if there is a more rails appropriate way to accomplish this, so can I set this up with active record associations, if so how?
It seems that this gem may be of help :
https://github.com/skyeagle/nested_set
or acts_as_tree:
https://github.com/rails/acts_as_tree
There are a lot of ways of nesting data in databases. The one to choose manly depends on how you are going to access this data, and how often you are going to change the tree.
Here is a list of current nesting plugins for rails: http://www.ruby-toolbox.com/categories/activerecord_nesting.html Be sure to reed each of the gems documentation in order to choose the most appropriate one for your situation.
I've come across an oddity in ActiveRecord's #relationship_ids method (that's added automatically when you declare 'has_many'), which saves immediately for existing records, which is causing me some issues, and I wonder if anyone had any useful advice.
I'm running Rails 2.3.5.
Consider this simple scenario, where an article has_many tags, say:
a = Article.first
a.name = "New Name" # No save yet
a.author_id = 1 # No save yet
a.tag_ids = [1,2,3] # These changes are saved to the database
# immediately, even if I don't subsequently
# call 'a.save'
This seems surprising to me. It's specifically causing problems whilst trying to build a preview facility - I want to update a bunch of attributes and then preview the article without saving it - but in this instance the tag changes do get saved, even though no other fields do.
(Of possible relevance is that if 'a' is a new article, rather than an existing one, things behave as I'd expect - nothing is saved until I call 'a.save')
I have a fairly nasty workaround - I can override the tag_ids= method in my model to instead populate an instance variable, and actually save the related models in a before_save callback.
But I'd love to know of a simpler way than me having to do this for every model with a has_many relationship I'd like to create a preview facility for.
Does anyone have any fixes/workarounds/general advice? Thanks!
There's a reason things are this way. It's called foreign keys. In a has many relationship, the information that links to the model that has many is stored outside of that model as a foreign key.
As in Articles, has many tags. The information that links a tag to an article is stored either in the tags table or in a join table. When you call save on an article you're only saving the article.
Active record modifies those other records immediately. Except in the case where you're working with a new article that hasn't been saved yet. Rails will delay creating/updating the associated records if it doesn't know which id to place in the foreign key.
However, if you're modifying existing records, the solution you've decided on is really all that you can do. There's an even uglier hack using accepts_nested_attributes_for, but it's really not worth the effort.
If you're looking to add this behaviour to many models but not all models, you might want to consider writing a simple plugin to redefine the assigment the method you need and add the call back in a single class method call. Have a look at the source of something like acts_as_audited to see how it's done.
If you're looking to add this behaviour to all models, you can probably write a wrapper for has_many to do that.