Which one would be preferable to use? Named scope or class methods? The use case is that the user selects a list box in the UI and based on the selected item, the table beneath it gets sorted. This functionality is across the application and is for many models.
The most important thing is that you do what feels right and that you're consistent with it. If something seems like it would be better in a method, use a method.
As of Rails 3, named scopes and class methods can function almost identically. However, the only "rules" I tend to follow when deciding on one or the other:
Use named scopes when an argument is NOT required
Use class methods when an argument is required
I also tend to use named scopes when I plan on chaining them together, as they tend to be short with minimal logic.
Related
So I'm learning RoR and I have to 3 services that calls an API with the same structure and i want to know if i can do it with a parent class and then work with the parent class to save code.
Thanks!
Yes. This may work if you can define a method with fewer arguments, which builds that structure for the API call.
Approaches are:
Put that common method in a base class which the other classes inherit from.
Put that common method in a module as a mix in.
Write a class to handle the call to the API, which builds the structure.
I don't think you have an "isa" relationship from the sound of it. So unless you do, 2 is preferred to 1. You can only inherit from one class, so mixins are more flexible.
Approach 3 is a good idea. You can have internal methods for the hostname and other constants for your API call.
This can be combined with the other approaches as you can use the Aggregation pattern to aggregate the API object in the other classes. That might or might not make sense. It might be just as well as the other classes have methods which instantiate the class in approach 3 and call it.
I'm making a method inside a Ruby on Rails app called "print" that can take any string and converts it into a png. I've been told it's not good to make class methods for base ruby classes like String or Array or Hash, etc. so "some string to print".print is probably not something I should do.
I was thinking about making a subclass of String called Print (class Print < String) and storing it in my lib/assets folder. So it would look like: Print.new("some string to print"). So my question is, am I on the right track by 1) creating a sub-class from String and 2) storing it in lib/assets?
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!
Answers to your question will necessarily be subjective because there are always be many answers to "where should I put functionality?", according to preference, principle, habit, customs, etc. I'll list a few and describe them, maybe add some of my personal opinions, but you'll ultimately have to choose and accept the consequences.
Note: I'll commonly refer to the common degenerate case of "losing namespacing scope" or "as bad as having global methods".
Monkeypatch/Extend String
Convenient and very "OO-message-passing" style at the cost of globally affecting all String in your application. That cost can be large because doing so breaks an implicit boundary between Ruby core and your application and it also scatters a component of "your application" in an external place. The functionality will have global scope and at worst will unintentionally interact with other things it shouldn't.
Worthy mention: Ruby has a Refinements feature that allows you to do do "scoped monkeypatching".
Worthy mention 2: Ruby also lets you includes modules into existing classes, like String.class_eval { include MyCustomization } which is slightly better because it's easier to tell a customization has been made and where it was introduced: "foo".method(:custom_method).owner will reveal it. Normal Monkeypatching will make it as if the method was defined on String itself.
Utils Module
Commonly done in all programming languages, a Util module is simply a single namespace where class methods/static methods are dumped. This is always an option to avoid the global pollution, but if Util ends up getting used everywhere anyways and it gets filled to the brim with unrelated methods, then the value of namespacing is lost. Having a method in a Util module tends to signify not enough thought was put into organizing code, since without maintenance, at it's worst, it's not much better than having global methods.
Private Method
Suppose you only need it in one class -- then it's easy to just put it into one private method. What if you need it in many classes? Should you make it a private method in a base class? If the functionality is inherent to the class, something associated with the class's identity, then Yes. Used correctly, the fact that this message exists is made invisible to components outside of that class.
However, this has the same downfall as the Rails Helper module when used incorrectly. If the next added feature requires that functionality, you'll be tempted to add the new feature to the class in order to have access to it. In this way the class's scope grows over time, eventually becoming near-global in your application.
Helper Module
Many Rails devs would suggest to put almost all of these utility methods inside rails Helper modules. Helper modules are kind of in between Utils Module and Private Method options. Helpers are included and have access to private members like Private Methods, and they suggest independence like Utils Modules (but do not guarantee it). Because of these properties, they tend to end up appearing everywhere, losing namespacing, and they end up accessing each other's private members, losing independence. This means it's more powerful, but can easily become much worse than either free-standing class/static methods or private methods.
Create a Class
If all the cases above degenerate into a "global scope", what if we forcibly create a new, smaller scope by way of a new class? The new class's purpose will be only to take data in and transform it on request on the way out. This is the common wisdom of "creating many, small classes", as small classes will have smaller scopes and will be easier to handle.
Unfortunately, taking this strategy too far will result in having too many tiny components, each of which do almost nothing useful by themselves. You avoid the ball of mud, but you end up with a chunky soup where every tiny thing is connected to every other tiny thing. It's just as complicated as having global methods all interconnected with each other, and you're not much better off.
Meta-Option: Refactor
Given the options above all have the same degenerate case, you may think there's no hope and everything will always eventually become horribly global -- Not True! It's important to understand they all degenerate in different ways.
Perhaps functionality 1, 2, 3, 4... 20 as Util methods are a complete mess, but they work cohesively as functionality A.1 ~ A.20 within the single class A. Perhaps class B is a complete mess and works better broken apart into one Util method and two private methods in class C.
Your lofty goal as an engineer will be to organize your application in a configuration that avoids all these degenerate cases for every bit of functionality in the system, making the system as a whole only as complex as necessary.
My advice
I don't have full context of your domain, and you probably won't be able to communicate that easily in a SO question anyways, so I can't be certain what'll work best for you.
However, I'll point out that it's generally easier to combine things than it is to break them apart. I generally advise starting with class/static methods. Put it in Util and move it to a better namespace later (Printer?). Perhaps in the future you'll discover many of these individual methods frequently operate on the same inputs, passing the same data back and forth between them -- this may be a good candidate for a class. This is often easier than starting off with a class or inheriting other class and trying to break functionality apart, later.
I have a model Project that appears in multiple controllers in an application I'm building as it appears on multiple pages. The where clause for this isn't complicated, per se, but I feel like it is too large to be repeated on every method requiring projects with these constraints.
My question is, where, if possible, does this common call for Projects go? In .NET, I'd have a ProjectService class with a method that would return all projects, and another that returned all projects that satisfied my conditions. I'm new to Rails so I'm struggling to see where this fits in?
You can either use a class method or Scopes.
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
# example for a scope
scope :awkward_projects,where(awkward: true)
# example for a class method.
def self.awkward_projects
where(awkward: true)
end
end
Its very safe to do what was once given in a SO answer. Read below and choose carefully.
Quoting an answer
"Generally, I use scope entries for simple one-liners to filter down my result set. However, if I'm doing anything complicated in a "scope" which may require detailed logic, lambdas, multiple lines, etc., I prefer to use a class method. And as you caught, if I need to return counts or anything like that, I use a class method."
In my current project, i notice few thing,
Maximum part of the business logic are moved to helper.
Included all helper files in a module under lib directory and included that module in application controller.
In many methods, no argument passed, instead they used the instance variable(create instance variable in calling method and use that instance variable in the called method).
Each action will call a helper method to execute business logic and that method will call some other helper methods.
All method are written as public, No protected and private method.
Models are used only for validation.
are those points follows good coding conventions? if not, can you suggest me the best coding standard to improve performance?
First, convention has nothing to do per se with performance.
Maximum part of the business logic are moved to helper.
I would say this is very bad. One of the popular idioms is "fat models, skinny controllers", which works most of the time. Put all the business logic you can in your models, where they belong. If you have really complicated views you want to simplify, use decorators (e.g the draper gem), and then separate business logic (model) and view logic (decorators) into their according locations.
Included all helper files in a module under lib directory and included that module in application controller.
Okay I think. As long as you have one place to maintain that chain, it feels okay. If it leads to misunderstandings/misusings/hacking around, then: not okay.
In many methods, no argument passed, instead they used the instance variable
If you're talking about methods in your model: this is good, since the method is targeted at the scope of your instance, and not of your class.
Each action will call a helper method to execute business logic and that method will call some other helper methods.
Sounds strange. The controller is responsible for preparing your data used in the view. If you are preparing specific data in your helpers to assign them to your view for usage, consider putting these into a decorator (as mentioned above). But calling a helper in almost every action sounds like something is done the wrong way.
All method are written as public, No protected and private method.
Non-public methods should not be public. Take a look at helper_method and hide_action from ActionController.
Models are used only for validation.
Wrong. Models contain the business logic, as mentioned above. What about modifying things in the console? Would you want to update all logical related data by hand, then? Do you do this "by hand" in your controller right now (which it seems like) ? What about when you introduce an API, do you copy-paste the code in there to not miss some logic? And what when the logic changes, are you really sure all required endpoints manually and independently handling that logic are also updated?
There's a reason models have relations, callbacks and instance methods. Use them!
Performance is not related to your arguments; they are about project organization.
Maximum part of the business logic are moved to helper
This shouldn't happen, you should move the business (aka models) logic inside the models. Rails doesn't force you doing it, so keeping the logic organization is up to developers.
Models are used only for validation
This is a consequence of putting the business (aka models) logic outside the models. You should move it from the controllers/helpers to the models. Again, Rails doesn't force you to do that, so it's up to developers to do it.
Included all helper files in a module under lib directory and included that module in application controller.
In many methods, no argument passed, instead they used the instance variable(create instance variable in calling method and use that instance variable in the called method).
Each action will call a helper method to execute business logic and that method will call some other helper methods.
All method are written as public, No protected and private method.
I think that these points are (some more, some less) related to the Rails Helper design. One flaw of Rails is the Helper design: they go against the OO pattern and usually end up by being a bunch of unorganized functions, à la PHP.
For this reason some people use Decorators. Decorators "add an OO layer of presentation logic" (from Draper), allowing to organize better the view related methods.
If you want to examine the argument, I suggest you the following links:
Google search about decorators
Draper
The Ruby Toolbox, presenters category
I'm currently working on a Rails project, and have found times where it's easiest to do
if object.class == Foo
...
else if object.class == Bar
...
else
...
I started doing this in views where I needed to display different objects in different ways, but have found myself using it in other places now, such as in functions that take objects as arguments. I'm not precisely sure why, but I feel like this is not good practice.
If it's not good practice, why so?
If it's totally fine, when are times that one might want to use this specifically?
Thanks!
Not sure why that works for you at all. When you need to test whether object is instance of class Foo you should use
object.is_a? Foo
But it's not a good practice in Ruby anyway. It'd much better to use polymorphism whenever it's possible. For example, if somewhere in the code you can have object of two different classes and you need to display them differently you can define display method in both classes. After that you can call object.display and object will be displayed using method defined in the corresponding class.
Advantage of that approach is that when you need to add support for the third class or a whole bunch of new classes all you'll need to do is define display method in every one of them. But nothing will change in places where you actually using this method.
It's better to express type specific behavior using subtyping.
Let the objects know how they are displays. Create a method Display() and pass all you need from outside as parameter. Let "Foo" know to display foo and "Bar" know how to display bar.
There are many articles on replacing conditionals with polymorphism.
It’s not a good idea for several reasons. One of them is duck typing – once you start explicitly checking for object class in the code, you can no longer simply pass an instance of a different class that conforms to a similar interface as the original object. This makes proxying, mocking and other common design tricks harder. (The point can be also generalized as breaking encapsulation. It can be argued that the object’s class is an implementation detail that you as a consumer should not be interested in. Broken encapsulation ≈ tight coupling ≈ pain.)
Another reason is extensibility. When you have a giant switch over the object type and want to add one more case, you have to alter the switch code. If this code is embedded in a library, for example, the library users can’t simply extend the library’s behaviour without altering the library code. Ideally all behaviour of an object should be a part of the object itself, so that you can add new behaviour just by adding more object types.
If you need to display different objects in a different way, can’t you simply make the drawing code a part of the object?