I'm starting to use Redis, and first thing my code is not too DRY, and was going to consolidate it in the application.rb and controller. Is this the best way to go, or should I make a new Class called Redis, and have all the logic in there?
My models are currently Customers, Orders, Products, and I'm using a lot of counters.
You will probably need a combination of new and existing model classes.
In many cases you can just drop the model used by the view directly into the datastore, which saves repetition. However, there will always be some places where the needs of the view and the datastore are different.
For example a property that appears as a list of values in the view may need to be stored as a separate set key rather than serialized with the other properties of the model.
Related
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 followed this examples http://framework.zend.com/manual/2.2/en/user-guide/database-and-models.html to create a model and a way to save it to a database.
But I don't like the idea of using the AlubumTable-class in my controller as I think this creates too much dependencies. I just want to add the save(), fetchAll(), etc. methods to my model so that I don't have to care about how to save my models inside my controller.
If I want to change the way my models get stored e.g. from a database to a REST-service I would have to rewrite every part of my controller where I get or store models instead of just changing the save() etc. methods in my model.
Are there any tutorials for my way or is this just a stupid idea? :)
The concern you have is actually OK, but you have to realize that the AlbumTable is nothing but a layer between your Controller and the Database. The AlbumTable actually is the one thing with the dependency, not the controller.
The Controller will always need some sort of "Service" or "Gateway" (which would be AlbumTable) to get access to the Data from the DB.
Also i do not understand what you mean by "i want to change the way my models get stored" - You should always store the MODEL into your Service. In the given example the Model is Album and the Service is AlbumTable. No matter where the data comes from - REST, RPC, "normal HTTP", you would always store the Album and not some ArrayData or whatnot. You'd rather try to implement a function inside your model like exchangeArray(), exchangeJson().
You may want to make your "problem" more clear to us...
I have read online that it is bad practice to use a "kitchen sink" model:
Rule #3 – The View dictates the design of the ViewModel. Only what is
required to render a View is passed in with the ViewModel.
If a Customer object has fifty properties, but one component only
shows their name, then we create a custom ViewModel type with only
those two properties.
Jimmy Bogard's subsequent explanation of how this is good, however, left me a little questioning. It'd be so easy to have my Model just contain a list of Customers, I could even use my POCO's.
So now I get to create custom little view model fragments for every page on the site? Every page that uses a Customer property would get one, but of course could not be shared since some of the information is extraneous, if one page used Age but not Name, for example. Two new mini view model classes right?
This is very time consuming, and seems like it'll lead to a million little custom view models - can someone elaborate as to the utility of this approach and why the easier approach is bad?
View model class can be used not only to transfer values, but it also defines data types (data annotations), validation rules and relations different then ones used in model. Some advantages that come to my mind right now:
There are different validation rules when you change user's password,
change his basic data or his subscription setting. It can be
complicated to define all these rules in one model class. It looks
much better and cleaner when different view models are used.
Using view model can also give you performance advantages. If you
want to display user list, you can define view model with id and name
only and use index to retrieve it from database. If you retrieved
whole objects and pass it to view, you transfer more data from
database than you need to.
You can define display, and editor templates for view models and reuse them on different pages using html helpers. It looks much worse, when you define templates for model POCOs.
If you would use your POCO objects as view models, you would essentially be showing your private objects and break the encapsulation. This in turn would make your model hard to change without altering the corresponding views.
Your data objects may contain details that are appropriate only to the data access layer. If you expose those things to the view, someone might alter those values that you did not expect to be altered and cause bugs.
Many of the same reasons as for having private members in OO languages apply to this reasoning. That being said, it's still very often broken because it's a lot of extra work to create all these "throw-away" models that only gets used once. There exists frameworks for creating these sorts of models, though the name eludes me, that can tie objects together and pick out the interesting properties only which takes away some of the drudgery from creating specific view models.
Your View Model tells the View how data should be shown. It expresses the model. I don't think its necessary to have two view models unless you have two ways to express your model. Just because you have two pages, doesn't mean you will be showing the data any different way, so I wouldn't waste time making two mini View Models when it can be in one reusable view model, Imagine if later you have a page that needs Name and Age, you would create another view model? It's absolutely silly. However, if you had two pages both showing 'Age' and it needed to be shown in a different way, then I would create another one.
This is possibly a bit of a stupid question, but I am getting confused due to the ASP.NET MVC book I am currently reading...
Working with Linq-To-SQL it seems to say that it is not good practice to pass the Linq-to-SQL objects straight to the controller, but that each object should be modelled separately first and this should be passed between the controller and the repository.
Say, I have a database of products. Linq-to-SQl creates a product class for me with Name, Price and Whatnotelse properties. I could pass that straight from repository to controller and then view, but instead it seems to recommend that I use and third class, say Product_Entity, with also Name, Price etc. properties and pass that to the controller.
I fail to see the benefit of this approach, except possibly for adding attributes to the properties... But apart from that it seems to have more drawbacks than benefits. Say each product has manufacturer information as well, I don't see how I can model that easily in my third class.
Is this approach really best practice? Or did I misunderstand all that? If so, why is it bad to work straight off the linq-to-sql generated objects? And how do you deal with relationships between objects in y
The huge benefit to this other class you create is that, to use your example, it doesn't necessarily map to either a product or a manufacturer. Think about it like this:
Your Linq to SQL classes are meant for talking in the "data" domain.
Your "data" classes (the ones you're having trouble with) are meant for talking in the "application" domain.
Let's take an example. Suppose in your MVC application you wanted to show a grid of information about products. You want to see their Name, Price (from the Product table) and their Country of Manufacture and Manufacturer name (from the Manufacturer table). What would you name this class? Product_Manufacturer? What if later on you wanted to add properties from yet a third table such as product discounts? Instead of thinking about these objects in purely the data domain, think about them with regard to your application.
So instead of Product_Manufacturer, what about calling it ProductSummaryItem? Each property of the ProductSummaryItem class would map 1:1 with a field shown in your grid on the UI. Your controller would perform the mapping between the information in the data domain (Product, Manufacturer) with the custom class you'd created in the application domain (ProductSummaryItem).
By doing this, you get some awesome benefits:
1) Writing your views becomes really, really simple. All you have to do to display your data is loop through the ProductSummaryItems and wrap them in and tags, and you're done. It also allows for simple aggregation. Say for example you wanted to add a field called ProductsSoldLastYear to your ProductSummaryItem class. You could do that very simply in your views because all it is to them is another property.
2) Since the view is trivial and there's mapping logic in the controller, it becomes much easier to test the controller's output because it's customized to what the view is going to see.
3) Since the ProductSummaryItem class only has the data it needs, your queries can potentially become much faster because they only need to query for the fields that would populate your ProductSummaryItem object, and nothing else. This overhead can become overbearing the more data-domain objects make up your ProductSummaryItem object.
This pattern is called Model View ViewModel (MVVM) and is hugely popular with MVC as well as in frameworks like WPF.
The argument against MVVM is that you have to somewhat reimplement simple classes for CRUD operations. Fair enough, I guess, but you can use a tool like automapper to help out with things like that. I think you'll find fairly quickly, though, that using the MVVM pattern even for CRUD pays dividends, because before you know it, even with simple classes, you'll start wishing you had extra fields which can easily drive your views.
This is mostly of a design pattern question. I have one type of model that I'm going to get the data to create them from multiple sources. So for example one record my be created from an API where another is created via screen scraping with Nokogiri.
My issue lies in how best to abstract out these different data sources. Right now I'm building lib classes that return the same hash which I then use to set the attributes of the model. But I'm wondering if this isn't more of a case to use STI. Or if there is some other way of doing this I'm just not thinking about.
I think your design decision would depend largely on what attributes need to be stored. From your description, it sounds like you have a model with multiple data sources, but which would be storing the same attributes regardless of the source. In that case STI seems like overkill. When you retrieve a row from the table, does it matter whether the source is the API or the screen scraper? If not, then you could just define separate methods for each data source and use the appropriate method in the controller.
#instance = MyModel.new(:datasource=>"API")`
I'd say don't worry about inheritance (or mixing in code from modules) unless you really need to. There are some gotchas -- STI is not fully supported by some gems/plugins, for example.