Rails Sti: single path, different controller - ruby-on-rails

Have STI classes:
class Page < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
class FirstTypePage < Page
end
class SecondTypePage < Page
end
Controllers for each class,
class PageController < AplicationCorroller
end
class FirstTypePageController < PageController
end
class SecondTypePageController < PageController
end
And routings:
resources :user
resource :page
end
How to handle FirstTypePage by FirstTypePageController, SecondTypePage by SecondTypePageController on single path?
i.e.
user/1/page/2 is handled by:
FirstTypePageController if "page 2" type is "FirstTypePage",
and by SecondTypePageController if "page 2" type is "SecondTypePage" ?
UPDATE: My solution:
match 'user/:user_id/page/:action',
:controller=>'page/first_type_page',
:constraints=>PageConstraints.new('FirstTypePage')
match 'user/:user_id/page/:action',
:controller=>'page/second_type_page',
:constraints=>PageConstraints.new('SecondTypePage')
class PageConstraints
##cache ||= {}
def initialize o_type
##mutex = Mutex.new
#o_type = o_type
end
def matches?(request)
user_id = request.params[:user_id]
#add Mutex lock here
unless page_type = ##cache[user_id]
page_type = User.find(user_id).do_some_magik_to_suggest_type
##cache[page_id] = page_type
##cache.shift if ##cache.size > 1000
end
page_type == #o_type
end
end
I think this solution will work fast on a small amount of page types, and we can manage memory size, used for routings on a large amount of pages

I can see one option to do that - preload all pages in the routes.rb and define special routes for each page.
resources :users do |user|
Page.all do |page|
if page.first_type?
# ... routes to first_type_page_controller
else
# ...
end
end
Another solution could be to use strategy patter in the PageController (no need to use FirstTypePageController and other).
pages_controller.rb:
before_filter :choose_strategy
def show
#strategy.show
end
private
def choose_strategy
#strategy = PagesControllerStrategy.new(self, page)
end
def page
#page ||= Page.find params[:id]
end
pages_controller_strategy.rb:
class PagesControllerStrategy
def initialize(controller, page)
#controller = controller
#page = page
end
def show
# do what you what with controller and page
end
end
However, I'd suggest you to split the behavior on the view level only:
show.html.haml:
- if page.first_type?
= render 'pages/first_type'
- else
// ...
EDIT:
I just found another solution, that could help you - custom constraints.
http://railsdispatch.com/posts/rails-3-makes-life-better
I'm not sure if that works in your case, but I think it is worth to play with routes more.

you can do it with before_filter, but separating STI models into different controllers isn't good solution. I totally agree with next quote
This may not always apply, but I have yet to see a case where STI works well with multiple controllers. If we are using STI, our objects share a set of IDs and attributes, and therefore should all be accessed in basically the same way (find by some attribute, sort by some attribute, restrict to administrators, etc). If presentation varies greatly we may want to render different model-specific views from our controller. But if object access varies so much that it suggests separate controllers, then STI may not have been the correct design choice.
took here http://code.alexreisner.com/articles/single-table-inheritance-in-rails.html

Related

Determine in model that which controller is trigger the save action?

Developing rails app for both api and front end. so we have products controller for api and products controller for the front and Product model is one for both.
Like that
class Api::V1::ProductsController < ActionController::API
def create
#product.save
end
end
class ProductsController < ActionController::Base
def create
#product.save
render #product
end
end
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
def weight=(value)
weight = convert_to_lb
super(weight)
end
end
Basically in product we have 'weight field' and this field is basically capture weight from the warehouse. it will be different unit for the user. so i'm going to save whatever weight is capture by unit, its lb,g or stone but it will convert to lb and store into database.
So i write the overide method for the conversation. but i want this override method should only call for front app only and not for the api. because api will always post weight in lb(its need to be convert in client side)
Can you guys anyone suggest the solution? what should i use or what should i do for this kind of scenario.suggest if its any other solution for that kind of situation as well. Thanks in advance.
It's better to keep Product model as simple as possible (Single-responsibility principle) and keep weight conversion outside.
I think it would be great to use Decorator pattern. Imagine class that works like this:
#product = ProductInKilogram.new(Product.find(params[:id]))
#product.update product_params
#product.weight # => kg weight here
So, you should use this new ProductInKilogram from Api::V1::ProductsController only.
You have options to implement that.
Inheritance
class ProductInKilogram < Product
def weight=(value)
weight = convert_to_lb
super(weight)
end
end
product = ProductInKilogram.find(1)
product.weight = 1
It's easy, but complexity of ProductInKilogram is high. For example you can't test such class in an isolation without database.
SimpleDelegator
class ProductInKilogram < SimpleDelegator
def weight=(value)
__getobj__.weight = convert_to_lb(value)
end
end
ProductInKilogram.new(Product.find(1))
Plain Ruby (My Favourite)
class ProductInKilogram
def initialize(obj)
#obj = obj
end
def weight=(value)
#obj.weight = convert_to_lb(value)
end
def weight
convert_to_kg #obj.weight
end
def save
#obj.save
end
# All other required methods
end
Looks a little bit verbose, but it is simple. It's quit easy to test such class, because it does nothing about persitance.
Links
Single-responsibility principle
Delegate gem
Decorator Pattern in Ruby

How can I pass in a variable defined in a class into a Rails form?

If I have a controller
class MyController < ApplicationController
vals = [...]
def new
...
end
def create
if save
...
else
render 'new'
end
end
how can I make the "vals" variable accessible to both methods? In my "new" view I want to use the "vals" variable for a drop-down menu, but rails is giving me errors. Of course, I could just copy the variable twice, but this solution is inelegant.
As Sebastion mentions a before_ hook / callback is one way to go about it, however as you mentioned it is for a dropdown menu, I am guessing it is a non-changing list, if so I would suggest perhaps using a Constant to define the values, perhaps in the model they are specific to, or if it is to be used in many places a PORO would do nicely to keep things DRY. This will then also allow you to easily access it anywhere, for example in models for a validation check, or to set the options of the dropdown menu in the view, or in the controller if you so wish:
class ExampleModel
DROPDOWN_VALUES = [...].freeze
validates :some_attr, inclusion: { in: DROPDOWN_VALUES }
end
class SomeController < ApplicationController
def new
# can call ExampleModel::DROPDOWN_VALUES here
end
def create
# also here, anywhere actually
end
end
You could use a before_* callback, e.g a before_action, this way you sets your vals variable as an instance one and make it to be available for your both new and create methods, something like:
class SomeController < ApplicationController
before_action :set_vals, only: [:new, :create]
def new
...
# #vals is available here
end
def create
if save
...
# and here
else
render 'new'
end
end
private
def set_vals
#vals = [...]
end
end
A different way from the ones before (although probably just having the instance method is preferred as in Sebastian's solution) is, take advantage of the fact that functions and local variables are called in the same way in ruby and just write:
def vals
#vals ||= [...]
end
and you should be able to access it on the controllers (not the views). If you want it on your views as well you can call at the beginning of the controller
helper_method :vals
If you want to be able to modify vals using vals="some value"
def vals= vals_value
#vals = vals_value
end
Take into account that probably using the intance variable as in Sebastian's solution is preferred, but if you, for whatever reason, are settled on being able to call "vals" instead of "#vals" on the view (for example if you are using send or try), then this should be able to do it for you.
Define in corresponding model
Eg :
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
TYPES = %w{ type1 type2 type3 }
end
and use in ur form like
User::TYPES
=> ["type1", "type2", "type3"]
You can reuse this anywhere in the application.

How to DRY up 2 controllers/models/views that are basically the exact same

An Order has_many AItems and BItems. As you can tell, the items are basically identical but with an important business reason for categorizing them separately. Wondering what's the best strategy to DRY this up. I realize this is a little opinionated... but hoping to get some clear points of view and arguments.
View code
Currently I'm using a partial. Like this:
class AItemsController
def new
end
end
class BItemsController
def new
end
end
# view files layout
> views
> AItems
> new.html.erb
> BItems
> new.html.erb
# routing
get '/AItems/new'
get '/BItems/new'
# code for /views/AItems/new.html.erb
<%= render "layouts/items_new", object: "AItems" %>
# code for /views/BItems/new.html.erb
<%= render "layouts/items_new", object: "BItems" %>
I'm wondering if it'd be easier to get rid of the partial entirely and just do parameters like this:
class AItemsController
def new
end
end
class BItemsController
def new
end
end
# view files layout
> views
> Items
> new.html.erb
# routing
get '/items/new/:type'
# code for /views/Items/new.html.erb
# code from partial evaluating the param[:type] instead of a passed object
Controller code
Currently everything is duplicated... (I haven't made any attempt at DRYing yet) as in it looks like this (very illustrative, the point is to just show that short of the naming conventions literally everything is basically the same):
class AItemsController
def new
#items = AItems.joins(:order).where("orders.status_id IS NULL")
end
def do_something
a_items_params.each do |item_params|
key_var = item_params[:some_attribute]
...
end
end
end
class BItemsController
def new
#items = BItems.joins(:order).where("orders.status_id IS NULL")
end
def do_something
b_items_params.each do |item_params|
key_var = item_params[:some_attribute]
...
end
end
end
I haven't DRYed this yet because I'm a little conflicted as to how. Examples below are illustrative, forgive if the code isn't exact, but hopefully you get the gist.
Solution A: In one way, I could keep the action definitions in each controller, and then have the code within the action pull from a shared concern:
class AItemsController
include SharedCode
def new
shared_new
end
def do_something
shared_do_something
end
end
Solution B: abstract away the action definitions to the shared concern:
class AItemsController
included SharedAction
shared_action("AItems")
end
Solution C: route everything to a singular controller and again use params to differentiate (passed from view)
class ItemsController
def new
item_type = params[:item_type]
end
def do_something
item_type = params[:item_type]
end
end
Model code
This one is a little more cut and dry, and I don't need a ton of feedback here, I will just used shared concerns for key methods/ callback.
Obviously the answer for one will affect the other. For example if everything routes through a single controller, then I'll have a single view with parameters rather than a partial approach. But because the controller has multiple DRYing options, there's still room for debate.
If you've read this far, I will happily take angry comments about how this question is too loosely defined in exchange for at least some thoughts on what you would do. What's more understandable for you if you were taking over my code?
I am trying to learn and the best way to do that is to solicit multiple points of view and pros and cons to weigh out.
Check out the InheritedResources Gem: https://github.com/josevalim/inherited_resources
Inherited Resources speeds up development by making your controllers
inherit all restful actions so you just have to focus on what is
important. It makes your controllers more powerful and cleaner at the
same time.
Or the Responders Gem, a replacement to Inherited Resources: https://github.com/plataformatec/responders
A set of responders modules to dry up your Rails 4.2+ app.

show method for controller on a has_one association

I have two models
thing.rb
has_one :subthing
subthing.rb
belongs_to :thing
And am routing with
resources :thing do
resource :subthing
end
resources :subthing
However, my show method on my controller
def show
#subthing = Subthing.find(params[:id])
end
when I visit
http://example.org/things/1/subthing
is giving me an error
Couldn't find Subthing without an ID
I sort of feel like this should be being taken care of by the framework... i.e it should work out that the relevant Subthing is the one that belongs to Thing.
Am I missing something or can I not use the same controller method here for Subthings on their own and Subthings when they're part of a thing.
Or do I need to explicitly tell the controller for each potential association. i.e.
def show
if params[:thing_id].present?
#subthing = #thing.find(params[:thing_id]).subthing
else
#subthing = Subthing.find(params[:id])
end
end
If you are intending to use the same SubthingsController for both the nested resource as well as the top level resources, then yes, you need to do as proposed:
def show
if params[:thing_id].present?
#subthing = #thing.find(params[:thing_id]).subthing
else
#subthing = Subthing.find(params[:id])
end
end
But your controller gets complicated very quick and its not worth it. You are better off re-defining your routes or use two separate controllers.

Ruby/Rails: Is it possible to execute a default method when calling an instance (#instance == #instance.all IF "all" is the default method)?

I understand my question is a bit vague but I don't know how else to describe it. I've asked in numerous places and no one seems to understand why I want to do this. But please bear with me, and I'll explain why I want something like this.
I'm using Liquid Templates to allow users to make some dynamic pages on my site. And for those that don't know, Liquid uses a class of theirs called LiquidDrop to expose certain items to the user. Any method in the drop can be called by the Liquid template.
class PageDrop < Liquid::Drop
def initialize(page)
#page = page
end
def name
#page.name
end
def children
PagesDrop.new(#page.children)
end
end
class PagesDrop < Liquid::Drop
def initialize(pages)
#pages = pages
end
def group_by
GroupByDrop.new(#pages)
end
def all
#pages.all
end
def size
#pages.size
end
end
For example, I want to be able to do this:
#page_drop = PageDrop.new(#page)
#page_drop.children # to get an array of children
instead of
#page_drop.children.all
Why do I have a pages drop?
Because I want to be able to cleanly split up the methods I can do to an array of pages, and methods I can do to a single page. This allows me to group pages like so:
#page_drop.children.group_by.some_method_here_that_the_group_drop_contains
To make it simpler for my users, I don't want them to have to think about adding "all" or not to a drop instance to get the "default" object/s that it contains. To reiterate:
#pages_drop = PagesDrop.new(Page.all)
#pages_drop == #pages_drop.pages #I want this to be true, as well as
#pages_drop == #pages_drop.all
Where did I get this idea?
In Rails, a scope (association object) (#person.friends) seems to return the array when you do certain things to it: #person.friends.each, for person in #person.friends
This isn't really possible. When you write #instance you aren't really calling an instance as you describe, you're getting a reference to the object that #instance refers to.
The reason it seems to work with the collections for Rails' associations is that the the association objects are instances of Array that have had some of their methods overridden.
I would consider removing PagesDrop and using the group_by(&:method) syntax if you want a concise way to express groupings. If you do want to keep it then you can get some way towards what you want by implementing each and [] on PagesDrop and having them delegate to #pages. That will let you use #page_drop.children in for loops, for instance.
It looks like you want to implement has_many outside of rails. Will the following work?
class PageDrop < Liquid::Drop
attr_accessor :children
def initialize(page)
#page = page
#children = []
end
def name
#page.name
end
end
This allows you to do the following:
#page_drop = PageDrop.new(#page)
#page_drop.children.size # => 0
#page_drop.children # => []
This also gives you all the standard array functions (group_by, size, each, etc). If you want to add your own methods, create a class that inherits from Array and add your methods there.
class PageArray < Array
def my_method
self.each{|a| puts a}
end
end
class PageDrop < Liquid::Drop
attr_accessor :children
def initialize(page)
#page = page
#children = PageArray.new
end
[...]
end
#page_drop = PageDrop.new(#page)
#page_drop.children.size # => 0
#page_drop.children # => []
#page_drop.children.my_method # Prints all the children
Then any functions you don't define in PageArray fall through to the Ruby Array methods.

Resources