Is there a more rubylike way of doing this helper function - ruby-on-rails

def work_location(application)
if application.contact.work_location.blank? rescue nil
return false
else
return true
end
return false
end
Basically i want to return true or false ....I only want to return true if the work_location is not blank and i need to catch the nil error
Actually this produces a syntax error
syntax error, unexpected modifier_rescue, expecting keyword_then or ';' or '\n'
..._location.blank? rescue nil

def work_location(application)
application.try(:contact).try(:work_location).present?
end
Personally I dislike handling potential nils by doing rescue false because you catch far more than nils: such a rescue rescues all sorts of other errors, for example it will catch NoMethodError, so if you'd typed one of the method names it would squash that error and make it much harder to track down.

Write tests and check both true and false return cases
Shorten code above with:
def work_location(application)
application.contact.work_location.blank? rescue true
end

As far as I can tell, you are creating a helper method here.
I should define a method on application, which you can then use in your views.
The advantage: it is purely object-oriented. An application should know if it has a workplace or not.
Secondly, use try: it will only attempt the given method or block if the receiver is not nil, else it returns nil.
So :
class Application
def has_work_location?
self.contact.try { |c| c.work_location.present? }
end
end
Note that this usage of try only works in rails 3.2, if you are on an older version it does not accept a block. Furthermore nil.present? works and returns falso, so you could write
def has_work_location?
self.contact.try(:work_location).present?
end
Note: because we are adding a method to application, we can safely assume application, so we only need to check that the contact exists anymore.
In your views you can then just write:
<%= #application.contact.workplace if #application.has_work_place? %>
or something similar. Hope this helps.

Related

why no implicit conversion of nil into Hash?

after setup a search into a serializer!
Rails spits out
no implicit conversion of nil into Hash
So, please someone can point out whats wrong with this code?
class SearchController < ApplicationController
def results
results_query = PgSearch.multisearch(params[:q]).paginate(page: page, per_page: 20)
result = results_query.map(&:searchable).map do |result_item|
case result_item.class.name
when 'Post'
PostSerializer.new(result_item)
else
raise NotImplementedError
end
end
render json: {
items: result,
page: page,
pages: results_query.total_pages
}
end
def page
params[:page] || 1
end
def serialize(data, serializer)
ActiveModel::Serializer::CollectionSerializer.new(data, each_serializer: serializer)
end
end
Since your case statement isn't checking many values, you could always make it into a standard if/else statement:
if result_item && result.class.name == 'Post'
PostSerializer.new(result_item)
else
raise NotImplementedError
end
Well, on the screenshots you've provided we can see the log message specifies that the error is on line 5.
According to your code, line 5 is: case result_item.class.name
The error message is TypeError (no implicit conversion of nil into Hash).
You're trying to get the class then the name of result_item. So the problem is with result_item which is equal to nil.
In order the resolve your problem you might want to check the ouput of results_query.map(&:searchable).map.
Based on the screenshot you've provided, I've quickly checked the source code. The offending line seems to be this one: https://github.com/Casecommons/pg_search/blob/master/lib/pg_search/document.rb#L22. The only reason why this would raise the described TypeError is if PgSearch.multisearch_options is nil – which, as far as I understand the code, would only be possible if you accidentally overwrote it in a wrong way. So I'd suggest doublechecking your global setup for PgSearch.multisearch_options to make sure this is actually set.
The east way to check the setting is by using a debugger or putting something like puts PgSearch.multisearch_options or Rails.logger.info 'PgSearch.multisearch_options' into the controller directly above the call that's failing.

rubocop app controller function validate param integer use of nil? predicate

I tried rewriting this function numerous ways to get around this error, however, I want to defer to other experts before I disable the cop around it.
def numeric?(obj)
obj.to_s.match(/\A[+-]?\d+?(\.\d+)?\Z/) == nil ? false : true
end
This is used like so:
def index
if params[:job_id] && numeric?(params[:job_id])
This issue was solved via: Checking if a variable is an integer
Update trying:
def numeric?(string)
!!Kernel.Float(string)
rescue TypeError, ArgumentError
false
end
Reference How do I determine if a string is numeric?
New error:
def numeric?(arg)
!/\A[+-]?\d+\z/.match(arg.to_s).nil?
end
Passes all Rubocop tests from a default configuration. Complete gist with tests at https://gist.github.com/aarontc/d549ee4a82d21d263c9b
The following code snippet does the trick:
def numeric?(arg)
return false if arg.is_a?(Float)
return !Integer(arg).nil? rescue false
end
Returns false for the following: 'a', 12.34, and '12.34'.
Returns true for the following: '1', 1.
You can write the method
def numeric?(obj)
obj.to_s.match(/\A[+-]?\d+?(\.\d+)?\Z/).nil?
end
You really don't need to do nil comparisons and then based on the decision returning true/false. #nil? method does it for you.

How to DRY a list of functions in ruby that are differ only by a single line of code?

I have a User model in a ROR application that has multiple methods like this
#getClient() returns an object that knows how to find certain info for a date
#processHeaders() is a function that processes output and updates some values in the database
#refreshToken() is function that is called when an error occurs when requesting data from the object returned by getClient()
def transactions_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().transactions(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().transactions(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
return output
end
end
end
def events_on_date(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token()
output = getClient().events(date)
processHeaders(output)
return output
end
end
end
I have several functions in my User class that look exactly the same. The only difference among these functions is the line output = getClient().something(date). Is there a way that I can make this code look cleaner so that I do not have a repetitive list of functions.
The answer is usually passing in a block and doing it functional style:
def handle_blocking(date)
if blocked?
# do something
else
begin
output = yield(date)
processHeaders(output)
output
rescue UnauthorizedError => ex
refresh_token
output = yield(date)
process_fitbit_rate_headers(output)
output
end
end
end
Then you call it this way:
handle_blocking(date) do |date|
getClient.something(date)
end
That allows a lot of customization. The yield call executes the block of code you've supplied and passes in the date argument to it.
The process of DRYing up your code often involves looking for patterns and boiling them down to useful methods like this. Using a functional approach can keep things clean.
Yes, you can use Object#send: getClient().send(:method_name, date).
BTW, getClient is not a proper Ruby method name. It should be get_client.
How about a combination of both answers:
class User
def method_missing sym, *args
m_name = sym.to_s
if m_name.end_with? '_on_date'
prop = m_name.split('_').first.to_sym
handle_blocking(args.first) { getClient().send(prop, args.first) }
else
super(sym, *args)
end
end
def respond_to? sym, private=false
m_name.end_with?('_on_date') || super(sym, private)
end
def handle_blocking date
# see other answer
end
end
Then you can call "transaction_on_date", "events_on_date", "foo_on_date" and it would work.

Ruby Yield on Block with Return Statement is Inconsistent

I'm trying to understand how ruby handles yields and return statements and noticed that sometimes, a yield on a block with a return statement is illegal but sometimes works. I have the following example that I'm struggling with:
def foo
yield
end
def bar
foo do
return 'asdf'
end
end
Now in the above case, I know that the following will fail:
foo do
return 'asdf'
end
> LocalJumpError: unexpected return
But the following will work (though it will return nil and not 'asdf'):
bar
=> nil
My question is why would what appears to be similar pieces of code react so differently? Is it because the return block needs a method context to run in? An even more subtle situation is the following
def baz
yield
puts 'Hi'
end
def bif
baz do
return 'asdf'
end
end
bif
=> nil
The "puts 'Hi'" after the yield doesn't get run at all, and I'm not sure why.
Ruby Proc can't have a return statement. The return statements that seemed to work actually belong to the method(def...end).
A good article about it:
http://www.robertsosinski.com/2008/12/21/understanding-ruby-blocks-procs-and-lambdas/

Returning true or error message in Ruby

I'm wondering if writing functions like this is considered good or bad form.
def test(x)
if x == 1
return true
else
return "Error: x is not equal to one."
end
end
And then to use it we do something like this:
result = test(1)
if result != true
puts result
end
result = test(2)
if result != true
puts result
end
Which just displays the error message for the second call to test.
I'm considering doing this because in a rails project I'm working on inside my controller code I make calls to a model's instance methods and if something goes wrong I want the model to return the error message to the controller and the controller takes that error message and puts it in the flash and redirects. Kinda like this
def create
#item = Item.new(params[:item])
if !#item.nil?
result = #item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file])
if result != true
flash[:notice] = result
redirect_to(new_item_url) and return
end
#and so on...
That way I'm not constructing the error messages in the controller, merely passing them along, because I really don't want the controller to be concerned with what the save_image method itself does just whether or not it worked.
It makes sense to me, but I'm curious as to whether or not this is considered a good or bad way of writing methods. Keep in mind I'm asking this in the most general sense pertaining mostly to ruby, it just happens that I'm doing this in a rails project, the actual logic of the controller really isn't my concern.
I would say that methods that return different types (e.g. boolean vs. string vs. numbers) under different circumstances are a bad practice.
If you have some sort of test method that wants to return details of why the test has not passed then you can return a pair of values (an Array) as follows:
def test(x)
if x == 1
return true, "x is fine"
else
return false, "Error: x is not equal to one."
end
end
and then write the section of your controller code as:
valid, message = #item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file])
if !valid
flash[:notice] = message
redirect_to(new_item_url) and return
end
If you're talking about a save_image method that will succeed the majority of the time but may fail and you want to indicate this failure and the reason then I would use exceptions e.g.
def save_image(file)
raise "No file was specified for saving" if file.nil?
# carry on trying to save image
end
and then your controller code would be along the lines of:
begin
result = #item.save_image(params[:attachment][:file])
rescue Exception => ex
flash[:notice] = ex.message
redirect_to(new_item_url) and return
end

Resources