Yet another ruby question but this is a bunch of questions in one. I'm really starting to like rails but there are some questions that I'd just like to ask straight out.
Right now, I'm implementing a queue in sqlite. I already have a scaffold setup with this working OK. The purpose is for a web crawler to read through the array and determine which links he should crawl next.
The architecture in the program is 2 controllers. one for Job and one for crawler. The Jobs has the standard Crud interface supplied by scaffold. Where I'm falling down is I'm still trying to understand how these things communicate with eachother.
The Job is formatted as a url:string and depth:decimal. The table is already populated with about 4 objects.
#sitesToCrawl = Job.all
#sitesToCrawl.each {|x|puts Job.url}
I have a bunch of questions about the above.
At the moment, this was supposed to display all the jobs and I foolishly thought it would display plain text but its actually a hexidecimal pointer to the object itself. What Im trying to do is iterate through the #sitesToCrawl and put out each Jobs url.
Questions start here:
1: I know ruby is dynamically typed. Will #sitesToCrawl become an array like i want it to be with each slot containing a job.
2: #sitesToCrawl.each is pretty straighforward and I'm assuming its an iterator.
is X the name od the method or what is the purpose of the symbol or string between |*|
3: Puts and print are more or less the same yes? if i say #x = puts 3 then would x be 3?
4: Job.url. Can objects be referenced this way or should I be using
##sitesToCrawl = db.execute("SELECT url FROM jobs;")
where db is a new database
As Rubish Gupta pointed out, in your block, you should do x.url, otherwise you're trying to access the url method on the class Job, not on instances of Job. In other words, in blocks, the items in the pipes are the arguments of the block, and each will iterate through your array, passing in one item at a time to your block. Check out the doc here.
Just to extend this idea, each on Hashes (associative arrays, maps, whatever you know them as) will pass two variables to your block: a key and a value, like this:
a_hash.each {|key_var, val_var| puts "#{key_var} is associated with #{val_var}"}
Also, it's been a bit since I've done plain ActiveRecord models, but you might look into doing
#sitesToCrawl = Job.all.to_a
since Job.all is a lazy finder in that it's building a query in potentia: you've essentially built a query string saying SELECT * FROM jobs, but it might not be executed until you try to access the items. each might do that, I can't remember off the top of my head, but if you're using a debugger to look at it, I know you need to_a to get it to run the query.
You should absolutely be using job_instance.url - that's the beauty of ActiveRecord, it makes database access easy, provided everything gets set up right :)
Finally, puts and print are almost the same - the difference is that puts "string" is essentialy print "sting"; STDOUT.flush - it flushes at the end of the statement.
Related
I'm having trouble with a little Ruby on Rails I'm building and need some help.
I have a Table with 20+ Columns and a corresponding XML File which can be parsed as some sort of hash with a gem. Every key would be mapped to a column and every value would be a data record in said column.
The way I access a specific value in the already parsed XML file is:
filename["crs","inputkeyhere"]
which returns the value, for example "52" or whatever.
What I am trying to do is upload the file, parse it with the gem and give each column the corresponding value.
My table (or model) is called "Attributeset" and I already know how I can access every column:
#attributeset = Attributeset.new
#attributeset.attributes.keys
So my thought process was:
Iterate over all the keys
Pass every key into a block called |a|
Use the rails possibilty to set attributes by calling the corresponding #attributeset.
Set colum attribute to the corresponding xml key
So my code would go something like this:
#attributeset.attributes.keys.each do |a|
#attributeset.a=filename["crs",a]
end
But my problem is, that ruby thinks ".a" is a method and apparently does not evaluate "a" to the block parameter.
I've read through lambdas and procs and whatnot but didn't really understand how they could work for my specific situation.
Coming from bash scripting maybe my thinking might be wrong but I thought that the .a might get evaluated.
I know I can run the block with yield, but this only works in methods as far as I know..
Any help is appreciated.
Thanks and stay healthy,
Alex
Thanks for the input!
I wanted to make it as clean as possible, and not using any temporary hashes to pass arguments.
I've found the method
write_attribute
which can be used like this:
#attributeset.write_attribute(a, xmp["crs",a])
worked perfectly for me.
You can use []= method to set values dynamically:
#attributeset.attribute_names.each do |attribute|
#attributeset[attribute] = filename["crs", attribute]
end
I'm not sure if this is just a lacking of the Rails language, or if I am searching all the wrong things here on Stack Overflow, but I cannot find out how to add an attribute to each record in an array.
Here is an example of what I'm trying to do:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
#user_for_record = User.where(:id => individual_news_story[:user_id]).pluck('name', 'profile_image_url');
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_name) = #user_for_record[0][0]
individual_news_story.attributes(:author_avatar) = #user_for_record[0][1]
end
Any ideas?
If the NewsStory model (or whatever its name is) has a belongs_to relationship to User, then you don't have to do any of this. You can access the attributes of the associated User directly:
#news_stories.each do |news_story|
news_story.user.name # gives you the name of the associated user
news_story.user.profile_image_url # same for the avatar
end
To avoid an N+1 query, you can preload the associated user record for every news story at once by using includes in the NewsStory query:
NewsStory.includes(:user)... # rest of the query
If you do this, you won't need the #user_for_record query — Rails will do the heavy lifting for you, and you could even see a performance improvement, thanks to not issuing a separate pluck query for every single news story in the collection.
If you need to have those extra attributes there regardless:
You can select them as extra attributes in your NewsStory query:
NewsStory.
includes(:user).
joins(:user).
select([
NewsStory.arel_table[Arel.star],
User.arel_table[:name].as("author_name"),
User.arel_table[:profile_image_url].as("author_avatar"),
]).
where(...) # rest of the query
It looks like you're trying to cache the name and avatar of the user on the NewsStory model, in which case, what you want is this:
#news_stories.each do |individual_news_story|
user_for_record = User.find(individual_news_story.user_id)
individual_news_story.author_name = user_for_record.name
individual_news_story.author_avatar = user_for_record.profile_image_url
end
A couple of notes.
I've used find instead of where. find returns a single record identified by it's primary key (id); where returns an array of records. There are definitely more efficient ways to do this -- eager-loading, for one -- but since you're just starting out, I think it's more important to learn the basics before you dig into the advanced stuff to make things more performant.
I've gotten rid of the pluck call, because here again, you're just learning and pluck is a performance optimization useful when you're working with large amounts of data, and if that's what you're doing then activerecord has a batch api you should look into.
I've changed #user_for_record to user_for_record. The # denote instance variables in ruby. Instance variables are shared and accessible from any instance method in an instance of a class. In this case, all you need is a local variable.
I am currently splitting some code out to make it more reusable, and other code more succinct.
I realize I am passing a good bit of options into the locals hash, besides just the form variable, and all of these seem to only apply directly to the input object I am creating.
I was thinking of merging the locals hash into another that contains some defaults, and passing that to the input creation function.
After some researching API docs like these:
Ruby on Rails - API - ActionView::Renderer
Ruby on Rails - API - ActionView::PartialRenderer
and digging around to find these last 2 methods in the stack trace:
From: .../.rvm/gems/ruby-2.1.5#ux-rails3.2/gems/actionpack-3.2.22.5/lib/action_view/template.rb # line 145 ActionView::Template#render_without_mini_profiler: ... 2.1.5 (#<ActionView::Template:0x007fa41e138cc8>):0 >
From: .../app/views/shared/_checkbox_group.html.erb # line 3 ActionView::CompiledTemplates#_app_views_shared__checkbox_group_html_erb___4197967411385159258_70171427980900: ... 2.1.5 (#<#<Class:0x007fa40f30fec0>:0x007fa40fe71c50>):0 >
RVM, Ruby, Rails, Formtastic, Pry, Byebug, & Pry-Byebug.
Old, not-so-helpful workaround answer
As it may be convenient from the question's phrasing, one method is to not spend time diving into the Rails template rendering framework code and documentaion, and instead simply provide the options I mentioned for the locals hash, inside of a single property containing a new hash containing them, and pass that into the template.
Later I use that hash to merge with the default hash I had inside of the template and pass that to the input function as normal.
I could leave the Q&A here in case there might still me reasons people would want to directly access the locals hash, or could even develop an alternative approach that would be possible as well.
Update
So I dove into the Rail template rendering framework...
Exposition
I started simply taking this:
2.1.5 (#<#<Class:0x007fc01d352e08>:0x007fc018879698>):0 > self.class
=> #<Class:0x007fc01d352e08>
That wasn't much helpful, then went up into actionpack-3.2.22.5/lib/action_view/template.rb:145 to find this:
2.1.5 (#<ActionView::Template:0x007fc011e90510>):0 > method_name
=> "_app_views_shared__adrad_index_html_erb___3381877171036202789_70231455466120"
2.1.5 (#<ActionView::Template:0x007fc011e90510>):0 > view.method(method_name.to_sym)
=> #<Method: #<Class:0x007fc01d352e08>(ActionView::CompiledTemplates)#_app_views_shared__adrad_index_html_erb___3381877171036202789_70231455466120>
2.1.5 (#<ActionView::Template:0x007fc011e90510>):0 > view.method(method_name.to_sym).source_location
=> ["<our project_path>/app/views/shared/some.html.erb", 0]
Where the last point wasn't great, but then I started looking for ActionView::CompiledTemplates, which unfortunately, you cannot use source_location to find, or instance variable declarations for that matter (different issue :) ).
I decided to randomly search the actionpack-.../lib/action_view/ directory to find a reference or so in context.rb, but instead of looking inside of template.rb, I skipped straight to searching for locals in that gem's files now.
resolver.rb did not help much, and neither did template_renderer.rb.
Once I delved into template.rb and found the familiar above stack frame for render that my answer had to be between that and my actual page with the included locals properties,
I followed compile! to its definition,
saw a familiar ActionView::CompiledTemplates,
then a compile,
found an interesting arbitrary, literal, meta source manipulation, as I was sort of expecting with the lack of more stack frames in-between to scour, and the callback-esque naming scheme, I found this curious variable, as a parameter to the dynamically-generated template function: local_assigns.
I quickly jump around to locals_code's definition since it is also used and verify this is source variable enumeration I was looking for!
Answer
local_assigns!
Also, I currently don't believe the hash provides any properties I would want to avoid, such as any information specific to only the current partial template page that I wouldn't want to be propagated to the child partial template page.
Update
I am starting to do more with this variable, and I wonder if I am limited.
I want to mix-in some default values, which might involve using binding.local_variable_set, but it is not able to create new local variables (How to dynamically create a local variable?), so I might just have to use my own nested data structure now..
I am aiming to serialise a set of objects into a file so as to create a backup. I have the start of that working, using a methods on the models (simplified here, assuming I have two ActiveRecords foo and bar):
def backup(file, foo, bar)
file.write(foo.to_json(root: true))
file.write(bar.to_json(root: true))
end
This gives me a file as I desire, in this case with two records:
{"foo":{"Account_id":1,"Name":"F","created_at":"2013-04-16T10:06:19Z","id":1,"updated_at":"2013-04-20T11:36:23Z"}}
{"bar":{"Account_id":1,"Name":"B","created_at":"2013-04-16T10:06:19Z","id":1,"updated_at":"2013-04-20T11:36:23Z"}}
At a later date I then want to read that backup in and reinstantiate those objects, probably then persisting them back to the database. My aim is to iterate through the file checking the type of each object, then instantiating the right object.
I have part of the logic, but not yet all of it, I haven't worked out how I determine the type of each serialised object before I instantiate it. The code I have for a restore is as follows:
def restore(file)
file.each_line do |line|
**<some magic that parses my line into objectType and objectHash>**
case objectType
when :foo
Foo.new.from_json(objectHash)
Foo.process
Foo.save!
when :bar
Bar.new.from_json(objectHash)
Bar.process
Bar.save!
end
end
end
What I'm looking for is the bit that goes in the "some magic" section. I can just write the code to parse the line directly to determine whether it's a foo or a bar, but I feel like there's probably some tricky Rails/Ruby way to do this that is automatic. Unfortunately, in this case Google is not being my friend. All I can see are pages that are focused on json in the web requests, but not parsing json back in this way. Is there something I'm missing, or should I just write the code to split the string directly and read the object type?
If I do write the code to split the string directly, I would write something along the lines of:
objectType = line[/^{"(\w*)"=>(.*)}/, 1]
objectHash = line[/{"(\w*)"=>(.*)}/, 2]
This is pretty ugly and I'm sure there's a better way (which I'm still looking into), but I'm not sure that this is even the right approach v's there being something that automatically looks at a json representation and knows from the root value what object to instantiate.
Lastly, the actual instantiation using from_json isn't working either, it isn't populating any of the fields on my ActiveRecord. It gives me nil parameters, so I think the parse syntax isn't right.
So, that makes three questions:
Is there a way to determine which object it is that I'm just missing, that is much cleaner?
If there isn't and I need to use a regexp, is there a syntax to get both bits of the line parsed in a single go, rather than my two lines with the same regexp?
The from_json syntax appears unhappy. Is there a syntax I'm missing here? (no longer a question - the code above is fixed, I was using as_json when it should have been to_json, although the documentation is rather unclear on that....)
(Note: edits over time to clarify my question, and because I've now got a regexp that works (didn't before), but still not sure it's very elegant.)
Further information - one of the problems here, as I dig into it further, is that the as_json isn't actually giving me json - what I have in the file is a hash, not json at all. Further, the values for created_at and lastupdated_at in the hash aren't quoted - so basically that's what's causing the parse on the way back in to fail. I've worked out that I should use to_json instead of as_json, although the documentation suggests that as_json should work.
I'm not sure I fully understand you're methodology, but I think using JSON.parse() would help.
There's some good information here http://mike.bailey.net.au/2011/02/json-with-ruby-and-rails/
This would help you translate the raw object back to a hash.
OK, so I think I've got something that works. I'm not convinced at all that it's elegant, but it gives me the result. I'll spend some time later trying to make it cleaner.
The code looks like this:
file.each_line do |line|
objectType = line[/^{"(\w*)":(.*)}/, 1]
objectJSON = line[/{"(\w*)":(.*)}/, 2]
objectHash = JSON.parse(objectJSON)
case objectType
when 'foo'
restoredFoo = Foo.new(objectHash.except('id', 'created_at', 'updated_at'))
restoredFoo.created_at = objectHash['created_at']
restoredFoo.updated_at = objectHash['updated_at']
restoredFoo.save!
end
when 'bar'
restoredBar = Bar.new(objectHash.except('id', 'created_at', 'updated_at'))
restoredBar.created_at = objectHash['created_at']
restoredBar.updated_at = objectHash['updated_at']
restoredBar.save!
end
end
Items of note:
I feel like there should be a way to create the object that isn't a JSON.parse, but rather would make use of the from_json method on the model. I'm not sure what the from_json is good for if it doesn't do this!!
I'm having fun with mass_assignment. I don't really want to use :without_protection => true, although this would be an option. My concern is that I do want the created_at and updated_at to be restored as they were, but I want a new id. I'm going to be doing this for a number of entities in my application, I didn't really want to end up replicating the attributes_protected in the code - it seems not very DRY
I'm still pretty sure my reg exp can give me both objectType and objectJSON in one call
But having said all that, it works, which is a good step forwards.
There was a very similar question before but i still struggle.
Is it possible to build a query up in stages?
Let's say I have a search form with many text and select fields that may be chained with and/or or which could be blank.
So the sql statement should consist of several parts that are connected individually for each search.
I tried to create strings for every option and put them to a symbol? (i mean #options) and put that in the where clause (e.g. Product.where(#options) ). That works somehow but i have got troubles with this part: 'params[:query]' when it's in quotes. Either my sql statement says 'select products from products where (name like params[:query]') or if i try #{params[:query]} it says: select products from products (where 'name' like ''.)
So how can i chain different parts of a query?
I looking forward to your answers!
Never, ever, ever embed raw strings in your SQL. This is extremely bad form. You should always use the escaping mechanism provided by Rails or something equivalent to avoid ending up in serious trouble. Inserting content from params is very dangerous and should never be done as it only takes this to nuke your app: { :query => '\"-- DROP TABLE users;' }
Generally you use the helper methods provided by ActiveRecord to build up your query in stages:
scope = Product
if (params[:query].present?)
scope = scope.where([ 'name LIKE ?', "%#{params[:query]}%" ])
end
if (params[:example].present?)
scope = scope.where(:example => true)
end
#products = scope.all
You can build it up in stages like this, modifying the scope in-place each time, and then execute the final call to retrieve it. Generally that's when you use your paginator to split up the results.
It's okay to put pretty much anything in your options because it should be escaped by the time it hits the SQL phase, much as anything on the HTML side is escaped for you as well.
Don't confuse instance variables like #options with a symbol like :query. The two are very different things. Instance variables have the benefit of propagating to your view automatically, so they are often used extensively in controllers. Views should avoid modifying them whenever possible as a matter of style.