Is it possible to save a file in a dependent model entity when the parent (base) entity has not yet been saved?
I would like the user to be able to add images to a story prior to the story actually being saved. So my model is like this:
Story (Base Entity) has_many :pictures
+ Picture (Depedent Entity) belongs_to :story
In the Story controller, I have a separate action called add_image. However, because the instance variable #story does not seem to be persisted across requests, I cannot access it in this action.
What I have thought of doing so far is to store the #story variable in the session on create, so I can retrieve it from there. Will this work? May it have any unintended side-effects for subsequent requests? (E.g. what if I have the previous story stored in the session and add a picture to the wrong story?).
Just think about the implementation. There are two tables in the database and there should be some row story_id in the "pictures" table. What should be there, if story is not saved and it has no id yet?
Do it another way. Add some boolean flag to Stories, for example finished. Save all "unfinished" stories and change flag to "finished" on save in your application. Don't forget to regularly delete old "unfinished" (abandoned) stories and their pictures.
Apparently it is possible to save dependent records together with the main on first create:
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html
See the section "Unsaved objects and associations". You must use collection.build to add the dependent records.
Now my problem is still how to reliably persist the parent across requests, though I am thinking this may be possible by storing it in the session with the ID generated by mongoid (the only problem being that it is not portable across ORMs, I think).
This answers part of my question. So I will not accept any answer just yet, and once I have found a proper solution, I will give an update.
Related
I am working on a legacy Rails 3.2 application that has a lot of settings a user can manage. Settings are associated with 3 types of model in the system: User, Company and CompanyUser. In order to avoid having to write database migrations each time a new type of setting is added
I've essentially created a key/value store (1 row for each setting) that has a polymorphic association with each of the above mentioned models. A base Setting class handles all of the common functionality like setting the key, relationships etc. each type of setting extends the base class and can contain it's own validation and/or logic. For example:
class Settings::EmailSignature < Setting
validates :whatever
end
For any model that requires a setting I've implemented a has_setting helper method that sets up the association and provides some delegates to directly get and set the setting without needing to go via the associated model object, the User model might look like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_setting :email_signature
end
This side of the code is working well, however the problem I have is when I create the form for the settings. For the user it might make sense to have User, Company and CompanyUser settings mixed together in the same form. Using nested attributes doesn't feel like a good solution in this situation as the settings are not related and there is no common parent object. I've considered using a form object to handle mapping each setting to the correct object but that doesn't feel like a great option either as each setting would require knowing it's id, the associated records id and it's type. This would not be particularly easy to manage when building the form.
I'm about to go down the route of having each setting in it's own form and having the record save automatically as the user edits each item. This would mean only a single record is ever saved at a time and will make things much simpler at the controller layer and also provide a lot of flexibility in how settings a grouped. Before I go down this route I wanted to see if there are any other options for submitting a single form in a single transaction that I may have overlooked?
Please note, this application is written in Rails 3.2 and is not in a state in which it can be easily upgraded to Rails 4 right now so any solutions need to work with Rails 3.2.
Disclaimer: I really spent time thinking about names of models and variables. If you also do, this question is for you.
I have a Rails project which contains two models: User and Project.
They are connected by the model ProjectsUser, which is a connection model in a many-to-many relationship. This model also holds the role of a user in the given project, along with other attributes such as tier and departments. So this is a has_many :through relationship.
Given this scenario, here is everything that always bothered me on all my rails projects since I started developing on it:
Should I use a ProjectsUserController or better add the relevant actions on UserController and ProjectController? At some point, I want to assign users to a project, or even changing the role of a user in a given project. Is it a better practice to leave those actions on the connection controller, or use the model controllers?
Should I write a method to get the role of a user for a given project? This is basically if I should have a method User#role_for(project) or not. Since this method basically is getting the information from the projects_user object it could make more sense to always let this explicity on the code, since most of the times I'll have the project and the user, but not the projects_user. Is this line of thinking correct, or maybe the problem is that I'm should have more project_user on my code than I really do? Are there good caveats for this?
Should I try to rename my table to a non-standard name if it is not obvious? Ok, I got that if I have the models User and NewsSite I should use has_many :subscriptions, but the thing is that naming those models in real life cases are usually harder, by my experience. When the name ends up not being that obvious (for exemple, in my case, maybe project_participation as #wonderingtomato suggested) is for the best, or in those cases it is better to fall back to the ProjectsUser approach?
One extra cookie for pointing beautiful open source Rails code, or by book indications that might help with my kind of questions.
I would use a specific controller. Even if now the interaction sounds simple, you can't know if in the future you'll need to add more advanced features.
I've been handling these kind of relationships in several projects, and using a controller for the join model has always paid off.
You can structure it this way, for example:
index should expect a params[:project_id], so that you can display only the index of users for a specific project.
create is where you add new users, that is where you create new join models.
update is to modify a value on an existing join model, for example when you want to update the role of a user in a project.
destroy is where you remove users from the project, that is where you delete the corresponding join models.
You might not need a show and edit actions, if you decide to manage everything in the index view.
Also, I'd suggest to choose a different name. Rails relies heavily on naming conventions, and projects_users is the default name for the join_table you would use with a has_and_belongs_to_many association. In theory you can use it for an independent model (and a has_many through:), but it's not immediately clear and you might break something. In addiction, it will confuse the hell out of any new programmer that could join the project in the future (personal experience).
What about calling the model something like project_participation?
If you haven't built a lot of functionality yet, and don't have yet that table in production, changing it now will save you a lot of headaches in the future.
update
1) I stand by what I said earlier: your join model is a full fledged record, it holds state, can be fetched, modified (by the user) and destroyed.
A dedicated controller is the way to go. Also, this controller should handle all the operations that modify the join model, that is that alter its properties.
2) You can define User#role_for(project), just remember that it should properly handle the situation where the user is not participating to the project.
You can also make it explicit with something like:
#user.project_participations.where(project_id: #project.id).first.try(:role)
# or...
ProjectParticipation.find_by(project_id: #project.id, user_id: #user.id).try(:role)
But I'd say that encapsulating this logic in a method (on one of the two models) would be better.
3) You are already using a non standard name for your table. What I mean is that it's the default name for a different kind of association (has_and_belongs_to_many), not the one you are using (has_many through:).
Ask yourself this: is the table backing an actual model? If yes, that model represents something in the real world, and thus should have an appropriate name. If, on the other hand, the table is not backing a model (e.g. it's a join table), then you should combine the names of the tables (models) it's joining.
In my mind, REST doesn't always have to map directly to DB records. A conceptual resource here is the association of Projects to Users. Implementation would be different depending on your persistence layer, but a RESTful API would be standard.
Convention over Configuration in Rails is a great helper, but it isn't necessarily applicable to every case 100% of the way through the stack. There doesn't need to be a 1-to-1 mapping between controllers, models, and their respective names. At the app-level, particularly, I want my routes/controllers to represent the public view of the API, not the internal implementation details of the persistence and domain layers.
You might have a UserProjectsController which you can perform CRUD on to add/remove project associations to users, and it will do the appropriate record manipulation without being overly bound to the DB implementation. Note the naming, where the route might be /user/:id/projects, so it's clear you are manipulating not Users or Projects, but their associations.
I think thinking about this sort of thing (both before and after the fact) is what leads to better designs.
I too start with the model and think about the application structurally. The next step in my oppinion is to build the user interface to make sense based on what makes it easy and useful for the user (spending more effort on things that matter more). So if it makes sense for the user to separately edit the ProjectsUser objects then the ProjectsUsersController is the way to go. More likely editing the join model objects as part of the Project (or User depending on the structure of you app) will be a better fit for the user. In that case using a nested form and editing via the controller (and model) that's the main model referenced by the form is better. The controller really lives to serve the UI, so decisions about it should be dependent on the UI.
Yes, if it makes your code simpler or more readable. If you use role more than once I suspect it will.
I would actually name that model something like Member, or ProjectMember (or Membership). It defines a relationship between a user and a project, so its name should reflect what relationship that is. In the occasions where such a name is too unwieldly or too hard to define then falling back to something like ProjectUser is reasonable (but not ProjectsUser). But I definitely like finding a more meaningful name when possible.
I have two questions on how the MVC works. I'm pretty sure I should add several resources, but I'm just coming to this conclusion and wanted to ask first to get a better understanding.
First question:
I have two models, user and subject. Users can enter subjects into the database. For each subject there are 5 data entry forms (Baseline, 3month, 6month,...) that are about 100-200 questions each (The relationship would be each subject has 1 of each data entry form). Should each data entry form be a new resource?
Second Question:
Lets say I want to randomize a few subjects into a group:
From the view, the user enters the amount of subjects to be randomized into a group, as well as the group name to be assigned. The form tag specifies an action I created, just for this function, called randomize.
From the controller, randomize uses the params sent from the view to query the database, and then to update each record to reflect the group. Instead of creating a new action for the randomize function, should I create a new resource for it? And as a side note, should any of these calculations be done in the model (other than defining the variables)?
Thank you for your time. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I am officially over-whelmed by all of the information I'm learning about this...but I feel that I'm really close to actually understanding the MVC.
I'll answer your second question first.
You should be creating controllers to handle CRUD tasks for resources. In this question you ask about creating a "Group". Regardless of whether this is an actual resource, or just a modification to a collection of other resources, you have the concept of creating a "Group", probably reading/updating a "group" and certainly deleting one.
Based on this, I would rather have a RandomGroup controller which I can call using a standard REST interface, rather than some #randomize action stuffed in the side of another controller.
As for your first question ... maybe, maybe not.
It really depends on whether an data entry form has any business logic of its own. If it doesn't then there's no harm it being part of a large object. But if your tests and code start to become too complex within the Subject model you may want to split it out into multiple models or at least multiple modules included into that model.
Perhaps you could consider that "Baseline", "3month", "6month" are all the same ... aside from their lead time. Perhaps that is a model in itself, and Subject could has_many :forms ??
Food for thought.
According to the present Rails documentation, regarding the << operator on a has_many relationship on an existing object:
collection<<(object, …)
Adds one or more objects to the collection by setting their foreign keys
to the collection’s primary key.
(This is the interesting bit)
Note that this operation instantly fires update sql without waiting for
the save or update call on the parent object.
I didn't realize this would happen, I was quite surprised; I could have sworn this was not the case in the past, though I admit I could be wrong.
In either case, I haven't been able to find any additional documentation regarding this, however I wonder if there is a way to prevent this update?
My situation is simple, I merely have an object which exists in the database, which is being prepared for an "edit" page. I append one or multiple related objects before the page is render. C'est tout.
Update:
Apparently the same update-scenario also occurs if you set the has_many relationship directly from an array using the = operator.
Use the collection's build method. That won't immediately fire a SQL statement like the others do.
foo.bars.build(attributes)
foo.save
Lots of good information can be found here: http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html
Note: This method assumes you have the flexibility to create your objects through the build method rather than using Bar.new.
Entity Framework 4, POCO objects and ASP.Net MVC2. I have a many to many relationship, lets say between BlogPost and Tag entities. This means that in my T4 generated POCO BlogPost class I have:
public virtual ICollection<Tag> Tags {
// getter and setter with the magic FixupCollection
}
private ICollection<Tag> _tags;
I ask for a BlogPost and the related Tags from an instance of the ObjectContext and send it to another layer (View in the MVC application). Later I get back the updated BlogPost with changed properties and changed relationships. For example it had tags "A" "B" and "C", and the new tags are "C" and "D". In my particular example there are no new Tags and the properties of the Tags never change, so the only thing which should be saved is the changed relationships. Now I need to save this in another ObjectContext. (Update: Now I tried to do in the same context instance and also failed.)
The problem: I can't make it save the relationships properly. I tried everything I found:
Controller.UpdateModel and Controller.TryUpdateModel don't work.
Getting the old BlogPost from the context then modifying the collection doesn't work. (with different methods from the next point)
This probably would work, but I hope this is just a workaround, not the solution :(.
Tried Attach/Add/ChangeObjectState functions for BlogPost and/or Tags in every possible combinations. Failed.
This looks like what I need, but it doesn't work (I tried to fix it, but can't for my problem).
Tried ChangeState/Add/Attach/... the relationship objects of the context. Failed.
"Doesn't work" means in most cases that I worked on the given "solution" until it produces no errors and saves at least the properties of BlogPost. What happens with the relationships varies: usually Tags are added again to the Tag table with new PKs and the saved BlogPost references those and not the original ones. Of course the returned Tags have PKs, and before the save/update methods I check the PKs and they are equal to the ones in the database so probably EF thinks that they are new objects and those PKs are the temp ones.
A problem I know about and might make it impossible to find an automated simple solution: When a POCO object's collection is changed, that should happen by the above mentioned virtual collection property, because then the FixupCollection trick will update the reverse references on the other end of the many-to-many relationship. However when a View "returns" an updated BlogPost object, that didn't happen. This means that maybe there is no simple solution to my problem, but that would make me very sad and I would hate the EF4-POCO-MVC triumph :(. Also that would mean that EF can't do this in the MVC environment whichever EF4 object types are used :(. I think the snapshot based change tracking should find out that the changed BlogPost has relationships to Tags with existing PKs.
Btw: I think the same problem happens with one-to-many relations (google and my colleague say so). I will give it a try at home, but even if that works that doesn't help me in my six many-to-many relationships in my app :(.
Let's try it this way:
Attach BlogPost to context. After attaching object to context the state of the object, all related objects and all relations is set to Unchanged.
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeObjectState to set your BlogPost to Modified
Iterate through Tag collection
Use context.ObjectStateManager.ChangeRelationshipState to set state for relation between current Tag and BlogPost.
SaveChanges
Edit:
I guess one of my comments gave you false hope that EF will do the merge for you. I played a lot with this problem and my conclusion says EF will not do this for you. I think you have also found my question on MSDN. In reality there is plenty of such questions on the Internet. The problem is that it is not clearly stated how to deal with this scenario. So lets have a look on the problem:
Problem background
EF needs to track changes on entities so that persistance knows which records have to be updated, inserted or deleted. The problem is that it is ObjectContext responsibility to track changes. ObjectContext is able to track changes only for attached entities. Entities which are created outside the ObjectContext are not tracked at all.
Problem description
Based on above description we can clearly state that EF is more suitable for connected scenarios where entity is always attached to context - typical for WinForm application. Web applications requires disconnected scenario where context is closed after request processing and entity content is passed as HTTP response to the client. Next HTTP request provides modified content of the entity which has to be recreated, attached to new context and persisted. Recreation usually happends outside of the context scope (layered architecture with persistance ignorace).
Solution
So how to deal with such disconnected scenario? When using POCO classes we have 3 ways to deal with change tracking:
Snapshot - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Dynamic tracking proxies - requires same context = useless for disconnected scenario
Manual synchronization.
Manual synchronization on single entity is easy task. You just need to attach entity and call AddObject for inserting, DeleteObject for deleting or set state in ObjectStateManager to Modified for updating. The real pain comes when you have to deal with object graph instead of single entity. This pain is even worse when you have to deal with independent associations (those that don't use Foreign Key property) and many to many relations. In that case you have to manually synchronize each entity in object graph but also each relation in object graph.
Manual synchronization is proposed as solution by MSDN documentation: Attaching and Detaching objects says:
Objects are attached to the object
context in an Unchanged state. If you
need to change the state of an object
or the relationship because you know
that your object was modified in
detached state, use one of the
following methods.
Mentioned methods are ChangeObjectState and ChangeRelationshipState of ObjectStateManager = manual change tracking. Similar proposal is in other MSDN documentation article: Defining and Managing Relationships says:
If you are working with disconnected
objects you must manually manage the
synchronization.
Moreover there is blog post related to EF v1 which criticise exactly this behavior of EF.
Reason for solution
EF has many "helpful" operations and settings like Refresh, Load, ApplyCurrentValues, ApplyOriginalValues, MergeOption etc. But by my investigation all these features work only for single entity and affects only scalar preperties (= not navigation properties and relations). I rather not test this methods with complex types nested in entity.
Other proposed solution
Instead of real Merge functionality EF team provides something called Self Tracking Entities (STE) which don't solve the problem. First of all STE works only if same instance is used for whole processing. In web application it is not the case unless you store instance in view state or session. Due to that I'm very unhappy from using EF and I'm going to check features of NHibernate. First observation says that NHibernate perhaps has such functionality.
Conclusion
I will end up this assumptions with single link to another related question on MSDN forum. Check Zeeshan Hirani's answer. He is author of Entity Framework 4.0 Recipes. If he says that automatic merge of object graphs is not supported, I believe him.
But still there is possibility that I'm completely wrong and some automatic merge functionality exists in EF.
Edit 2:
As you can see this was already added to MS Connect as suggestion in 2007. MS has closed it as something to be done in next version but actually nothing had been done to improve this gap except STE.
I have a solution to the problem that was described above by Ladislav. I have created an extension method for the DbContext which will automatically perform the add/update/delete's based on a diff of the provided graph and persisted graph.
At present using the Entity Framework you will need to perform the updates of the contacts manually, check if each contact is new and add, check if updated and edit, check if removed then delete it from the database. Once you have to do this for a few different aggregates in a large system you start to realize there must be a better, more generic way.
Please take a look and see if it can help http://refactorthis.wordpress.com/2012/12/11/introducing-graphdiff-for-entity-framework-code-first-allowing-automated-updates-of-a-graph-of-detached-entities/
You can go straight to the code here https://github.com/refactorthis/GraphDiff
I know it's late for the OP but since this is a very common issue I posted this in case it serves someone else.
I've been toying around with this issue and I think I got a fairly simple solution,
what I do is:
Save main object (Blogs for example) by setting its state to Modified.
Query the database for the updated object including the collections I need to update.
Query and convert .ToList() the entities I want my collection to include.
Update the main object's collection(s) to the List I got from step 3.
SaveChanges();
In the following example "dataobj" and "_categories" are the parameters received by my controller "dataobj" is my main object, and "_categories" is an IEnumerable containing the IDs of the categories the user selected in the view.
db.Entry(dataobj).State = EntityState.Modified;
db.SaveChanges();
dataobj = db.ServiceTypes.Include(x => x.Categories).Single(x => x.Id == dataobj.Id);
var it = _categories != null ? db.Categories.Where(x => _categories.Contains(x.Id)).ToList() : null;
dataobj.Categories = it;
db.SaveChanges();
It even works for multiple relations
The Entity Framework team is aware that this is a usability issue and plans to address it post-EF6.
From the Entity Framework team:
This is a usability issue that we are aware of and is something we have been thinking about and plan to do more work on post-EF6. I have created this work item to track the issue: http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864 The work item also contains a link to the user voice item for this--I encourage you to vote for it if you have not done so already.
If this impacts you, vote for the feature at
http://entityframework.codeplex.com/workitem/864
All of the answers were great to explain the problem, but none of them really solved the problem for me.
I found that if I didn't use the relationship in the parent entity but just added and removed the child entities everything worked just fine.
Sorry for the VB but that is what the project I am working in is written in.
The parent entity "Report" has a one to many relationship to "ReportRole" and has the property "ReportRoles". The new roles are passed in by a comma separated string from an Ajax call.
The first line will remove all the child entities, and if I used "report.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" instead of the "db.ReportRoles.Remove(f)" I would get the error.
report.ReportRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Remove(f))
Dim newRoles = If(String.IsNullOrEmpty(model.RolesString), New String() {}, model.RolesString.Split(","))
newRoles.ToList.ForEach(Function(f) db.ReportRoles.Add(New ReportRole With {.ReportId = report.Id, .AspNetRoleId = f}))