I have a 'widget' that comprises an html/css block of code. It is a type of data layout, which I call the 'stack'.
The stack has bits of .erb (Ruby on Rails) embedded in it, which enters the data for each user.
I need to include this stack in multiple places, where it needs to represent different data from different models.
So, one stack might contain a field called #company.name and the other stack might contain #project.name || "Unidentified Project".
How does one refactor / organize this situation? Options that I can see:
Have two separate stacks, which would introduce redundancy and inconsistency, but would be an obvious answer to the problem without limit to scenario-specific customization.
Include if statements for every data point to test which circumstance the stack is being used for, but this is very code-ugly and unsustainably complicated for more than 2 stacks.
Some unknown unknown.
How would you tackle this?
One simple way would be to write the erb in a generic way so that it works for either a project or a company for example, in your Project model you could put:
def display_name
name || "Unidentified Project"
end
Then in your Company model put:
def display_name
name
end
When you render the ERB, pass in a variable with some generic name like main_object and call its display_name function. The ERB code would not know or care what class main_object is:
<%= main_object.display_name %>
If it bothers you to put display-related functions like display_name in your models, you could use the Presenter pattern. A present is basically a plain-old ruby object that you create from your model(s) and then pass to the view. I saw a good talk on this pattern by Jeff Casimir called "Fat Models Aren't Enough" and the slides are here:
http://en.oreilly.com/rails2011/public/schedule/detail/18514
David's solutions are good. In some situations you may also consider helpers or partials (e.g. if you want to include complex html). For example:
Helper
def display_name(object)
if object.respond_to? :name and object.name
object.name
else
if object.class.respond_to? :human_name
"Unidentified #{object.class.human_name}"
else
"Unidentified #{object.class.name}"
end
end
end
Partial
<%= render :partial => "stack/name/#{object.class.underscore}", :locals => {object.class.underscore => object} %>
With any complex ERB in app/views/stack/name/_project.html.erb:
<label style="<%= "background-color: red;" if project.name.blank? %>">
<%= project.name || "Unidentified Project" %>
</label>
Related
Imagine a Rails project that looks up animal celeberties based on their names. This Rails app is backed by an external service that does the actual lookup. The service returns back results based on a key. For example, if I make a request to this external api like [GET] /animal?name=benji, I would get back something like {"type":"dog", "legs":"4", "tail-length":"short", "collar":"blue"}. However, if I pass in ...?name=flipper to the animal endpoint, I would get back {"type":"dolphin", "color":"gray", "food":"fish"}. (The data is returned in actual JSON or XML. I am just using pseudo code here to communicate the point.)
My first question is this... Given that the attributes of the return call vary based on data which is passed in, when unmarshaling a response (for lack of a better term) into a "model" object, does it make sense to implement some type of factory pattern (ala Design Patterns in Ruby, by Russ Olsen, Chapter 13) to create objects of an appropriate class? Are there other approaches that would make sense?
My next question is this, lets say that I want to display a list of all animals on a web page (using ERB templates.) Does it make sense to create different partial templates (eg _dolphin.html.erb and _dog.html.erb) and then put a case in the main list view that can deligate rendering each list item to an appropriate template.
For example:
list.html.erb...
<ul>
<% for animal in #animals.each %>
<li>
<% if animal.type == 'dog' %>
<%= render :partial => 'dog', :locals => {:animal => animal} %>
<% elsif item.type == 'dolphin' %>
<%= render :partial => 'dolphin', :locals => {:animal => animal} %>
<% else %>
<%= render :partial => 'generic_animal', :locals => {:animal => animal} %>
<% end %>
</li>
<% end %>
</ul>
(Here animal.type=='dog' is intentional. I am not using a symbol (:dog) because the data returned back from the API is a string value, and it is used to populate the animal.type attribute. Bad, I know.)
The project that I am working on is using this approach right now. (Obivously, I have changed the elements/domain.) I am wondering if this is a valid approach, and/or if others have dealt with similar problems and how they went about it.
Thanks!
I'd say create a single model and a single view which contains all possible attributes (can't be an infinite number ;) ).
And then you have an
if attribute_x exists then
display it
end
if attribute_y exists then
display it
end
for each attribute.
If you create a view for each animal this wouldn't be DRY at all, 'cause you'll repeat yourself sooo many times, just knowing that each animal has favorite food and a color, etc.. Another reason: If the API changes a bit, and an animal gathers or looses an attribute you would have to adapt this change.
With just one view, it would be all fine for all time.
If you want to be super-sure that you gather all attributes, you could place an array of all known attributes inside your controller and if there's something unknown: write it to a log file.
I'd only choose the way of 'one view per animal' if you want to be able to display things completely different for some animals. But then you could also tell your controller that it should choose another view if name = 'Donkey Kong'. you know what I mean.
On a Content model have an attribute named slug. When creating a new record, I want to use a helper to populate this field, but on an existing record I want to use the value from the database.
Currently I have:
<% if #content.new_record? %>
<%= f.text_field :slug, :value => "#{generate_slug(6)}" %>
<% else %>
<%= f.text_field :slug %>
<% end %>
But that seems a bit verbose. Is this the best way, or is there no other way? (Rails newb just trying to find the "Rails way" on issues I'm unsure of)
Edit
I should note that the helper is currently in /app/helpers/application_helper.rb Moved to be a private action in the Contents controller. David's answer worked great.
In your controller
#content.slug ||= generate_slug(6)
This will assign a value to the slug attribute if none is present
Then, in your view you can simply use
<%= f.text_field :slug %>
Options
Try after_initialize callback in your model.
Try creating a method in your model where you set defaults and call it in your new action in the controller. Also call this method if your create fails and you render new. Remember to set default only when no value exists by using the ||= operator.
Example to follow. I'm typing on phone!
I happen to use jQuery in my projects, so when I want some functionality like this, I usually use something like labelify. Then, I'd use something like <%= f.text_field :slug, :title => generate_slug(6) %>. (Hot tip, you don't need to put the #generate_slug call inside of a string if it returns something that will resolve to a string by itself, in fact it's more performant if you don't.)
If you don't want to go with jQuery approach, you might want to wrap this piece of logic in your model.
def Content < ActiveRecord::Base
def slug
self.new_record? ? self.slug_for_new_record : attributes[:slug]
end
private
def slug_for_new_record
# I don't know what you're doing in generate_slug, but it sounds model-
# related, so if so, put it here and not in a helper
end
end
If it really belongs in the view, still another option is to just make your Ruby a little bit more concise (you'll have to judge if this is more readable):
<%= f.text_field :slug, :value => (generate_slug(6) if #content.new_record?) %>
Don't forget the parens surrounding (generate_slug(6) if #content.new_record?). If you do, the if will be applied to the text_field, which is not what you want.
But there are still more ways to do it. The above line of code isn't great if your logic might change and you're pasting this code all over your rails project. When I wanted to add a 'required' class to my text fields but only if they were a new record (we had some legacy data that we didn't want to make people clean up), I created my own form builder with a required_field method that just called text_field and added a 'required' class if the item was a new record. This might seem like a work, but we have around 20 different forms, each with potentially multiple required fields, and it's a lot easier to change the business logic in one place. So if you really think this logic belongs in the view but you've got a ton of these lines of code and you don't want to have to change it in a million places, then FormBuilder is the way to go. I think this is in most cases prettier and more appropriate than a helper, but again, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Here's my code somewhat adapted for your case:
# config/environment.rb
ActionView::Base.default_form_builder = NamespacesAreFun::FormBuilder
# lib/namespaces_are_fun/form_builder.rb
module NamespacesAreFun
class FormBuilder < ActionView::Helpers::FormBuilder
def slug_field(method, options = {})
opts = options.to_options
opts.merge!(:value => generate_slug) if self.object.new_record?
text_field(method, opts)
end
end
end
# views/.../your_view.html.erb
<%= f.slug_field :slug %>
Hopefully in all of these different approaches is one that fits your project.
I've had a problem with the following issue in Rails and ASP.Net MVC. Often there are multiple widgets of functionality on a page, yet one controller action is supposed to render the page. Let me illustrate:
Let's say I have a normal e-commerce site, and the menu is made of categories, while the page is to display an group of products.
For the products, let's say I have an action on a controller that looks something like:
def product_list
#products = Products.find_by_category(:name => 'lawnmowers')
end
And I have a layout with something like
<div id="menu"><%= render :partial => 'menu' %></div>
<div id="content"><%= yield %></div>
The products have a view...
<%= render :partial => 'product', :collection => #products %>
(note I've ommited the product view as irrelevant)
And the menu has a partial...
<% Category.each {|c| %>
<%= render :partial => 'menu_node', :locals => { :category => c } %>
<% } %>
The line I have a problem with is the "Category.each.do" in the view. I'm fetching data in the view, as opposed to using variables that were set and bound in the controller. And it could easily be a more complex method call that produces the menu.
The solutions I've considered are:
-A view model base class that knows how to get various pieces of data. But you could end up with one of these for each conceptual "section" of the site.
-a local variable that populates at the top of each method (violates DRY)
-the same thing, but in a before_filter call
None of these seem very elegant to me. I can't help but look at this problem and think that a MVP presenter per view (not screen) is a more elegant solution.
ASP.Net MVC has render action (different from rails render :action), which does address this, but I'm not sure what I think of that solution.
Thoughts? Solution suggestions?
Added Note:
The answers provided so far are good suggestions. And they apply to the example I gave, where a menu is likely present in every layout, and is clearly secondary to the product data.
However, what if there is clearly no second class citizen? Portal type sites commonly have multiple unrelated widgets, in which each is important.
For example, What if this page was displaying weather trends, with widgets for temperature, humidity, and precipitation (and each is a different model and view type).
In rails we like to have a concept of thin-controllers, thick-models. So I think you're right to not want to have variables set in the controller.
Also, in order to enable a more-complex method later on, I recommend doing something like:
/app/controllers/application_controller.rb
before_filter :add_menu_nodes
def add_menu_nodes
#menu_nodes = Category.menu_nodes(current_user)
end
/app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
<%= render :partial=>:menu, :locals=>{:categories=>#menu_nodes} %>
/app/models/category.rb
def self.menu_nodes(current_user)
Category.all.order(:name)
end
That way in the future you could update Category.menu_nodes with a more complicated solution, based on the current user, if you need.
Forgive me if I butcher the Ruby (or misunderstand your question), but what's wrong with
class section_helper
def menu( section )
// ...
menuBuiltAbove
end
end
in the view
<%= section_helper.menu( 'section' ) %>
?
This question relates to cleaning up the view and giving the controller more of the work.
I have many cases in my project where I have nested variables being displayed in my view. For example:
# controller
#customers = Customer.find_all_by_active(true)
render :layout => 'forms'
# view
<% #customers.each do |c| %>
<%= c.name %>
<% #orders = c.orders %> # I often end up defining nested variables inside the view
<% #orders.each do |o| %>
...
<% end %>
<% end %>
I am fairly new to RoR but it seems that what I'm doing here is at odds with the 'intelligent controller, dumb view' mentality. Where I have many customers, each with many orders, how can I define these variables properly inside my controller and then access them inside the view?
If you could provide an example of how the controller would look and then how I would relate to that in the view it would be incredibly helpful. Thank you very much!
I don't think there is anything drastically wrong with what you're doing. Looping through the customers and outputting some of their attributes and for each customer, looping through their orders and outputting some attributes is very much a view-oriented operation.
In the MVC architecture, the controller has responsibility for interacting with the model, selecting the view and (certainly in the case of Rails) providing the view with the information it needs to render the model.
You might consider extracting the code into a view helper though, if you have that exact code repeated more than once. You could even genericize it, passing in the name of a model and association. I haven't tested it, but you should be able to do something like this:
def display_attributes(models, association, attribute, association_attribute)
content = ''
models.each do |m|
content << "<p>#{m.attribute}</p>"
associated_models = m.association
associated_models.each do |am|
content << "<p>#{am.association_attribute}</p>"
end
end
content
end
Then in the view, you could use the helper like this:
<%= display_attributes(#customers, orders, name, name) %>
Obviously you would change the HTML markup within the helper method to suit your requirements. Note that if you're not using Rails 3 then you'll want to escape the output of the attribute names in the helper method.
I don't think there's anything wrong with your code. I'd just suggest for you to use a :include in your find
#customers = Customer.find_all_by_active(true, :include => :orders)
to reduce the number of queries.
I see nothing wrong with the code as you showed.
You are mixed up about the "intelligent controller, dumb view" approach though, i tend to prefer the "skinny controller, fat model", so indeed the view should be dumb, but you put the intelligence inside your model, and your helpers (or use a presenter), but definitely not in the controller.
Warning: Noob here.
I know this is a trivial subject but I'm having a lot of difficulty in figuring out how exactly I can simplify my views by moving parts of them into helpers. For example, I've always read that conditionals in your views are prime candidates for extraction into helpers, but I couldn't really find examples of this, and my attempts to achieve this failed.
For example, suppose I have:
#index.html.erb
<% for beast in #beasts do -%>
<% if beast.dead? -%>
<%= beast.body %>
<%= link_to "bury", bury_beast_path( :id => beast.id ) %>
<% else -%>
<%= beast.body %>
<%= link_to "kill!", kill_beast_path( :id => beast.id ) %>
<% end -%>
<% end -%>
It annoys me a little to have this in my view, but how exactly could I move this to a helper instead? And further simplify it, if possible. (I've read somewhere that conditionals are bad but it's just beyond me how you could program anything without them.)
Another example: I need to id my body tags with the format controller_action. The best I've got so far is this:
#index.html.erb
<body id="<%= controller_action %>">
…and…
#application_helper.rb
def controller_action
#id = #controller.controller_name + "_" + #controller.action_name
end
I'm no expert, but that's still ugly even to me.
To make things more complicated, Ryan Singer said something I liked: to treat ERB like an image tag, using helpers to "reveal intention". Then in the next breath saying that you should have no HTML in helpers for that is the way to hell. WTF? How are both things compatible? If it's come to the point where you can just declare behaviors in the view, surely there should be a lot of HTML to be rendered behind the scenes? I can't grasp it.
So, that's basically it. I'd appreciate if anyone could share some thoughts on this, or point me to some good in depth reading on the subject – which I've found to have a really weak coverage on the web. I've already googled it to exhaustion but who knows.
Refactoring makes your views easier to maintain. The problem is choosing where the refactored code goes.
Your two choices are partials and helpers. There's no stone-set rules dictating which should be used where. There are a couple of guidelines floating around like the one stating that helpers should not contain HTML.
Generally partials are better suited for refactoring sections that are more HTML/ERB/HAML than ruby. Helpers on the other hand are used for chunks of ruby code with minimal HTML or generating simple HTML from parameters.
However, I don't agree with the sentiment that helpers should contain no HTML at all. A little is ok, just don't over do it. The way helpers are processed hinder their use for producing large amounts of HTML. Which is why it's suggested that your helpers contain minimal amounts of HTML. If you look at the source the helpers that ship with rails you will notice that most of them generate html. The few that don't, are mainly used to generate parameters and evaluate common conditions.
For example, any of the form helpers or link_to variants fit the first form of helpers. While things like url_for and logged_in? as supplied by various authentication models are of the second kind.
This is the decision chain I use to determine whether to factor code from a view into a partial or helper.
Repeating or nearly identical statements producing a single shallow html tag? => helper.
Common expression used as an argument for another helper? => helper.
Long expression (more than 4 terms) used as an argument for another helper? => helper.
4 or more lines of ruby (that is not evaluated into HTML)? => helper.
Pretty much everything else => partial.
I'm going to use the code you're looking to refactor as an example:
I would refactor the view in the question this way:
app/helpers/beast_helper.rb:
def beast_action(beast)
if beast.dead?
link_to "bury", bury_beast_path(beast)
else
link_to "kill!", kill_beast_path(beast)
end
end
app/views/beasts/_beast.html.erb:
<%= beast.body %>
<%= beast_action(beast) %>
app/views/beasts/index.html.erb:
<%= render :partial => "beast", :collection => #beasts %>
It's technically more complicated, because it's 3 files, and 10 lines total as opposed to 1 file and 10 lines. The views are now only 3 lines combined spread over 2 files. The end result is your code is much more DRY. Allowing you to reuse parts or all of it in other controllers/actions/views with minimal added complexity.
As for your body tag id. You should really be using content_for/yield. For that kind of thing.
app/views/layouts/application.html.erb
...
<body id="<%= yield(:body_id) %>">
...
app/views/beasts/index.html.erb
<% content_for :body_id, controller_action %>
...
This will allow you to override the id of the body in any view that requires it. Eg:
app/views/users/preferences.html.erb
<% content_for :body_id, "my_preferences" %>
The first thing I'd do would be this:
#index.html.erb
<%= render #beasts %>
#_beast.html.erb
<%= beast.body %>
<%= link_to_next_beast_action(beast) %>
#beast_helper.rb
def link_to_next_beast_action(beast)
if beast.dead?
link_to "bury", bury_beast_path( :id => beast.id )
else
link_to "kill!", kill_beast_path( :id => beast.id )
end
end
What I've done is separate out the rendering of the beast into a partial which uses collection semantics.
Then I've moved the logic for showing the kill/bury links into a beast helper. This way if you decide to add another action (for example, 'bring back from dead'), you'll only have to change your helper.
Does this help?
A third choice is to use a view model from the Cells gem. This is a very popular framework that brings object-orientation to the view layer in Rails.
# app/cells/beast/cell.rb
class Beast::Cell < Cell::Concept
def show
return dead if model.dead?
kill
end
private
def dead
link_to "bury", bury_beast_path( :id => model.id )
# you could render a view here, too!
end
def kill
link_to "kill!", kill_beast_path( :id => model.id )
end
end
You then render a view model using a helper (in the view or controller).
# app/views/beasts/index.erb
<%= concept(:beast, #beast).call %>
<%-# this returns the link content %>
That's all! You can test this cell isolated in a separate test. Cells also give you view rendering, view inheritance and many more things.
As an example, you could use a view for the kill link.
# app/cells/beast/cell.rb
class Beast::Cell < Cell::Concept
# ..
def kill
render :kill
end
end
This renders the cell's killer view.
# app/cells/beast/views/index.erb
<%= link_to "kill!", kill_beast_path( :id => model.id ) %>
Note the location of the view, it's nicely packaged into the cell directory.
And, yes, cells can do HAML and any other template engine supported by AbstractController.
Another startegy would be to not use templates and helpers at all.
For rendering you could :
render your views directly from your controllers using render(:inline => ). If you still want to keep Views and Controllers formally separated you can create modules / mixins that you include into the controllers.
or create your own view classes and use them to render your response.
The idea behind this is that helpers and rails erb templating system don't take advantage of OOP, so that at the end of the day you can't define general behaviours that you'll specialize according to each controller's/request's needs; more often than not one ends up rewriting very similar looking chunks of code, which is not very nice from a maintenance standpoint.
Then if you still need some helper methods (eg. form_tag, h, raw, ...) you only have to include them in your controller / dedicated view class.
See this : rails-misapprehensions-helpers-are-shit for a fun but useful article.
EDIT: to not sound like a complete douche, I'd say implementing this depends on how big your application is supposed to be, and how often you're going to have to update your code. Plus, if you're delegating the design to a non-programmer, he/she may well be in for some programming courses before digging into your code, which admittedly would be less directly understandable than with templates syntax.