I have the following models.
class Company < ApplicationRecord
has_many :company_users
has_many :users, :through => :company_users
after_update :do_something
private
def do_something
# check if users of the company have been updated here
end
end
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :company_users
has_many :companies, :through => :company_users
end
class CompanyUser < ApplicationRecord
belongs_to :company
belongs_to :user
end
Then I have these for the seeds:
Company.create :name => 'Company 1'
User.create [{:name => 'User1'}, {:name => 'User2'}, {:name => 'User3'}, {:name => 'User4'}]
Let's say I want to update Company 1 users, I will do the following:
Company.first.update :users => [User.first, User.second]
This will run as expected and will create 2 new records on CompanyUser model.
But what if I want to update again? Like running the following:
Company.first.update :users => [User.third, User.fourth]
This will destroy the first 2 records and will create another 2 records on CompanyUser model.
The thing is I have technically "updated" the Company model so how can I detect these changes using after_update method on Company model?
However, updating an attribute works just fine:
Company.first.update :name => 'New Company Name'
How can I make it work on associations too?
So far I have tried the following but no avail:
https://coderwall.com/p/xvpafa/rails-check-if-has_many-changed
Rails: if has_many relationship changed
Detecting changes in a rails has_many :through relationship
How to determine if association changed in ActiveRecord?
Rails 3 has_many changed?
There is a collection callbacks before_add, after_add on has_many relation.
class Project
has_many :developers, after_add: :evaluate_velocity
def evaluate_velocity(developer)
#non persisted developer
...
end
end
For more details: https://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#label-Association+callbacks
You can use attr_accessor for this and check if it changed.
class Company < ApplicationRecord
attr_accessor :user_ids_attribute
has_many :company_users
has_many :users, through: :company_users
after_initialize :assign_attribute
after_update :check_users
private
def assign_attribute
self.user_ids_attribute = user_ids
end
def check_users
old_value = user_ids_attribute
assign_attribute
puts 'Association was changed' unless old_value == user_ids_attribute
end
end
Now after association changed you will see message in console.
You can change puts to any other method.
I have the feelings you are asking the wrong question, because you can't update your association without destroy current associations. As you said:
This will destroy the first 2 records and will create another 2 records on CompanyUser model.
Knowing that I will advice you to try the following code:
Company.first.users << User.third
In this way you will not override current associations.
If you want to add multiple records once try wrap them by [ ] Or ( ) not really sure which one to use.
You could find documentation here : https://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#has-many-association-reference
Hope it will be helpful.
Edit:
Ok I thought it wasn't your real issue.
Maybe 2 solutions:
#1 Observer:
what I do it's an observer on your join table that have the responsability to "ping" your Company model each time a CompanyUser is changed.
gem rails-observers
Inside this observer call a service or whatever you like that will do what you want to do with the values
class CompanyUserObserver < ActiveRecord::Observer
def after_save(company_user)
user = company_user.user
company = company_user.company
...do what you want
end
def before_destroy(company_user)
...do what you want
end
end
You can user multiple callback in according your needs.
#2 Keep records:
It turn out what you need it keep records. Maybe you should considerate use a gem like PaperTrail or Audited to keep track of your changes.
Sorry for the confusion.
I build a query dynamically, based on either a has_one or has_many relation. So, I can end up with either an object, or CollectionProxy. How can I test, based on this result, whether the query used the has_one or the has_many relation?
I thought of checking the type, but the CollectionProxy's type subclasses the related model's type.
This dynamic query involves calling an attribute on an object, which can be either a has_one or a has_many relation. Something like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :profile
has_many :names
user = User.new
attr = 'profile' # or 'names'
user.send(attr) # I want to check whether this is a result of which of the two relations
You can use Active Record's reflection:
User.reflect_on_association(:profile)
#=> #<ActiveRecord::Reflection::HasOneReflection:0x007fd2b76705c0 ...>
User.reflect_on_association(:names)
#=> #<ActiveRecord::Reflection::HasManyReflection:0x007fd2b767de78 ...>
Within a case statement:
klass = User
attr = :profile
case klass.reflect_on_association(attr)
when ActiveRecord::Reflection::HasOneReflection
# ...
when ActiveRecord::Reflection::HasManyReflection
# ...
end
### OR by macro
case klass.reflect_on_association(attr).macro
when :belongs_to
# ...
when :has_many
# ...
when :has_one
# ...
end
This works based on the association declaration in your model (user.rb), i.e. without accessing the database.
You can actually check the type of the result. You just have to check if it's an ActiveRecord::Base or an ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy.
Following your example:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :profile
has_many :names
user = User.new
attr = 'profile'
user.send(attr).is_a? ActiveRecord::Base # true
user.send(attr).is_a? ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy # false
attr = 'names'
user.send(attr).is_a? ActiveRecord::Base # false
user.send(attr).is_a? ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy # true
This was tested on a Rails 4.1.4 but the classes are the same since Rails 3, apparently.
Consider using try like this:
post.try(:owner)
this way a has_one relation will return the owner and has_many won't.
It some situations it may be inconclusive, but should suffice for most of them.
owner is just an example:
class Post
has_one :owner
class Owner
belongs_to :post
post = Post.create ...
post.try(:owner)
returns owner if class Post has_one :owner, and nil if class Post has_many :owners
For your example: user.try(:profile)
I want to be able to use two columns on one table to define a relationship. So using a task app as an example.
Attempt 1:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
So then Task.create(owner_id:1, assignee_id: 2)
This allows me to perform Task.first.owner which returns user one and Task.first.assignee which returns user two but User.first.task returns nothing. Which is because task doesn't belong to a user, they belong to owner and assignee. So,
Attempt 2:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, foreign_key: [:owner_id, :assignee_id]
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
That just fails altogether as two foreign keys don't seem to be supported.
So what I want is to be able to say User.tasks and get both the users owned and assigned tasks.
Basically somehow build a relationship that would equal a query of Task.where(owner_id || assignee_id == 1)
Is that possible?
Update
I'm not looking to use finder_sql, but this issue's unaccepted answer looks to be close to what I want: Rails - Multiple Index Key Association
So this method would look like this,
Attempt 3:
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.by_person(person)
where("assignee_id => :person_id OR owner_id => :person_id", :person_id => person.id
end
end
class Person < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.by_person(self)
end
end
Though I can get it to work in Rails 4, I keep getting the following error:
ActiveRecord::PreparedStatementInvalid: missing value for :owner_id in :donor_id => :person_id OR assignee_id => :person_id
TL;DR
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.where("owner_id = ? OR assigneed_id = ?", self.id, self.id)
end
end
Remove has_many :tasks in User class.
Using has_many :tasks doesn't make sense at all as we do not have any column named user_id in table tasks.
What I did to solve the issue in my case is:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :owned_tasks, class_name: "Task", foreign_key: "owner_id"
has_many :assigned_tasks, class_name: "Task", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User"
# Mentioning `foreign_keys` is not necessary in this class, since
# we've already mentioned `belongs_to :owner`, and Rails will anticipate
# foreign_keys automatically. Thanks to #jeffdill2 for mentioning this thing
# in the comment.
end
This way, you can call User.first.assigned_tasks as well as User.first.owned_tasks.
Now, you can define a method called tasks that returns the combination of assigned_tasks and owned_tasks.
That could be a good solution as far the readability goes, but from performance point of view, it wouldn't be that much good as now, in order to get the tasks, two queries will be issued instead of once, and then, the result of those two queries need to be joined as well.
So in order to get the tasks that belong to a user, we would define a custom tasks method in User class in the following way:
def tasks
Task.where("owner_id = ? OR assigneed_id = ?", self.id, self.id)
end
This way, it will fetch all the results in one single query, and we wouldn't have to merge or combine any results.
Extending upon #dre-hh's answer above, which I found no longer works as expected in Rails 5. It appears Rails 5 now includes a default where clause to the effect of WHERE tasks.user_id = ?, which fails as there is no user_id column in this scenario.
I've found it is still possible to get it working with a has_many association, you just need to unscope this additional where clause added by Rails.
class User < ApplicationRecord
has_many :tasks, ->(user) {
unscope(:where).where(owner: user).or(where(assignee: user)
}
end
Rails 5:
you need to unscope the default where clause
see #Dwight answer if you still want a has_many associaiton.
Though User.joins(:tasks) gives me
ArgumentError: The association scope 'tasks' is instance dependent (the scope block takes an argument). Preloading instance dependent scopes is not supported.
As it is no longer possible you can use #Arslan Ali solution as well.
Rails 4:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, ->(user){ where("tasks.owner_id = :user_id OR tasks.assignee_id = :user_id", user_id: user.id) }
end
Update1:
Regarding #JonathanSimmons comment
Having to pass the user object into the scope on the User model seems like a backwards approach
You don't have to pass the user model to this scope.
The current user instance is passed automatically to this lambda.
Call it like this:
user = User.find(9001)
user.tasks
Update2:
if possible could you expand this answer to explain what's happening? I'd like to understand it better so I can implement something similar. thanks
Calling has_many :tasks on ActiveRecord class will store a lambda function in some class variable and is just a fancy way to generate a tasks method on its object, which will call this lambda. The generated method would look similar to following pseudocode:
class User
def tasks
#define join query
query = self.class.joins('tasks ON ...')
#execute tasks_lambda on the query instance and pass self to the lambda
query.instance_exec(self, self.class.tasks_lambda)
end
end
I worked out a solution for this. I'm open to any pointers on how I can make this better.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def tasks
Task.by_person(self.id)
end
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :completed, -> { where(completed: true) }
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
def self.by_person(user_id)
where("owner_id = :person_id OR assignee_id = :person_id", person_id: user_id)
end
end
This basically overrides the has_many association but still returns the ActiveRecord::Relation object I was looking for.
So now I can do something like this:
User.first.tasks.completed and the result is all completed task owned or assigned to the first user.
Since Rails 5 you can also do that which is the ActiveRecord safer way:
def tasks
Task.where(owner: self).or(Task.where(assignee: self))
end
My answer to Associations and (multiple) foreign keys in rails (3.2) : how to describe them in the model, and write up migrations is just for you!
As for your code,here are my modifications
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :tasks, ->(user) { unscope(where: :user_id).where("owner_id = ? OR assignee_id = ?", user.id, user.id) }, class_name: 'Task'
end
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :owner, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "owner_id"
belongs_to :assignee, class_name: "User", foreign_key: "assignee_id"
end
Warning:
If you are using RailsAdmin and need to create new record or edit existing record,please don't do what I've suggested.Because this hack will cause problem when you do something like this:
current_user.tasks.build(params)
The reason is that rails will try to use current_user.id to fill task.user_id,only to find that there is nothing like user_id.
So,consider my hack method as an way outside the box,but don't do that.
Better way is using polymorphic association:
task.rb
class Task < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :taskable, polymorphic: true
end
assigned_task.rb
class AssignedTask < Task
end
owned_task.rb
class OwnedTask < Task
end
user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assigned_tasks, as: :taskable, dependent: :destroy
has_many :owned_tasks, as: :taskable, dependent: :destroy
end
In result, we can use it so:
new_user = User.create(...)
AssignedTask.create(taskable: new_user, ...)
OwnedTask.create(taskable: new_user, ...)
pp user.assigned_tasks
pp user.owned_tasks
We can use ActiveRelation like this:
MyModel.where(:field => "test").create => #<Message ... field:"test">
But it doesnt work for joins with polymorphic has_one associations:
class RelatedModel < AR::Base
# has :some_field
belongs_to :subject, :polymorphic => true
end
class MyModel < AR::Base
# need some dirty magic here
# to build default related_model with params from active_relation
has_one :related_model, :as => :subject, :dependent => :destroy
end
describe MyModel do
it "should auto-create has_one association with joins" do
test = MyModel.joins(:related_model).where("related_models.subject_type" => "MyModel", "related_models.some_field" => "chachacha").create
test.related_model.should_not be_nil
test.related_model.some_field.should == "chachacha"
test.related_model.subject_type.should == "MyModel"
test.related_model.subject_id.should == test.id
# fails =)
end
end
Is it possible to extract active_relation params, pass them to MyModel for use in before_create and build RelatedModel with them?
Diving into ActiveRecord sources i found that
ActiveRecord::Relation covers 'create' with 'scoping' method.
ActiveRecord::Persistance 'create' calls 'initialize' from ActiveRecord::Core.
ActiveRecord::Core 'initialize' calls 'populate_with_current_scope_attributes'
This method declared in ActiveRecord::Scoping uses 'scope_attributes' declared in ActiveRecord::Scoping::Named.
scope_attributes creating relation 'all' and calls 'scope_for_create' on it.
'ActiveRecord::Relation's 'scope_for_create' uses only 'where_values_hash' from current_scope that does not contain rules like 'related_models.subject_type' (this values are contained in where_clauses). So we need to have simple key-value wheres to be used with 'create' on ActiveRecord::Relation. But ActiveRecord not clever enough to know that 'some_field' in where clause should be used with join table.
I found it can be implemented only by accessing where options with self.class.current_scope.where_clauses in 'before_create' on MyModel, parsing them and setting up attributes.
class MyModel < AR::Base
before_create :create_default_node
def create_default_node
clause = self.class.current_scope.where_clauses.detect{|clause| clause =~ /\`related_models\`.\`some_field\`/}
value = clause.scan(/\=.+\`([[:word:]]+)\`/).flatten.first
self.create_node(:some_field => value)
end
end
But it is so dirty, then i decided to find simpler solution and inverted dependency as described in Railscast Pro #394, moved RelatedModel functionality to MyModel with STI. Actually i needed such complicated relation creation because RelatedModel had some functionality common for all models (acts as tree). I decided to delegate 'ancestors' and 'children' to RelatedModel. Inverting dependency solved this problem.
class MyModel < AR::Base
acts_as_tree
belongs_to :subject, :polymorphic => true
end
class MyModel2 < MyModel
end
class RelatedModel < AR::Base
# has :some_field
has_one :my_model, :as => :subject, :dependent => :destroy
end
MyModel.create{|m| m.subject = RelatedModel.create(:some_field => "chachacha")}
MyModel.ancestors # no need to proxy relations
I've seen a couple examples of the older syntax, but I can't find an example using the new 3.x syntax (one such older example: factory girl multiple has_many through's).
Models
class RawPosition < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :position_translations
has_many :specific_positions, through: :position_translations
end
class SpecificPosition < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :position_translations
has_many :raw_positions, through: :position_translations
end
class PositionTranslation < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :raw_position
belongs_to :specific_position
end
Factories
factory :raw_poisition_multiple, class: RawPosition do
raw_input "WR/QB"
sport_type_id 5
after_create do |a|
#a.specific_positions.create({specific_position: "WR"})
#a.specific_positions.create({specific_position: "QB"})
FactoryGirl.create(:specific_position, raw_position: a)
FactoryGirl.create(:qb_specific_position, raw_position: a)
end
end
factory :specific_position do
specific_position "WR"
end
factory :qb_specific_position do
specific_position "QB"
end
Spec
describe "WR/QB" do
before do
#player.player_dict['POS'] = "WR/QB"
FactoryGirl.create(:raw_poisition_multiple)
#player.clean_position(#player_to_team_history)
end
....
end
If I uncomment the lines from the raw_position_multiple factory and comment out the FactoryGirl lines in the after_create block, things work fine. I'd just like the ability to use a factory to create the associations.
I was able to get past a similar issue by reloading the root model after creating the associations. In your example, that would mean adding:
a.reload
to the end of your after_create block.