I love using Haml helpers, but over the years things have changed a bit. The old way was simply to concatenate to the buffer. Here's what I have:
def confirmation_table(field)
# Be certain that if the user is logged in, his/her email and name show
if field.respond_to? :user
haml_tag('tr') {
haml_tag('th', 'Email:')
haml_tag('td', field.user.email)
}
haml_tag('tr') {
haml_tag('th', 'Name:')
haml_tag('td', field.user.full_name)
}
else
haml_tag('tr') {
haml_tag('th', 'User Information:')
haml_tag('td', 'Not specified.')
}
end
field.class.columns.collect{|col| col.name}.reject{|col|
col =~ /_at$/ ||
col =~ /_on$/ ||
col =~ /_id$/ ||
col == 'id'}.each do |col|
haml_tag('tr') {
haml_tag('th', ActiveSupport::Inflector::humanize(col))
haml_tag('td', typeize(field, col))
}
end
end
This can, of course, be accessed in my view as simply as:
- confirmation_table(#f)
However, it makes more sense (to me) for this to return a string. I can't see how haml_capture provides the same structuring ability. Any hints?
Wrap your haml_tag calls in capture_haml:
def confirmation_table(field)
capture_haml do
if field.respond_to? :user
haml_tag(:tr) do
haml_tag('th.email', 'Email:')
haml_tag('td.email', field.user.email)
end
# ...
end
end
end
They'll be captured and returned by capture_haml.
Related
I have this method which works fine but I'm thinking that it may be improved, either for readability and/or efficience.
def default_something
something =
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_by(id: DEFAULT_SOMETHING_ID)
{
'name' => something.name,
'day' => something.meta_data[:day],
'hour' => something.meta_data[:hour],
}
end
I can "beautify it" by creating some more methods like:
def default_something
something = def A || def B || (etc)
end
def A
Legal::Something.find_for_A_in_placea('xx', claim.blabla.identifier)
end
def B
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
end
In addition I should say:
find_for_B part only retrieves a value when claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode || claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode = 'ASL'
Is the "beautified" version the way to go?
And/or should I add an if statement regarding
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.first.bleble.indivcode) ||
Legal::Something.find_for_B_in_placeb('xx', claim.eligible.last.blublu.indivcode)
to improve efficiency and readability, stating it happens only when "indivcode" = "ASL"?
What else can I do?
I am trying to reject array items based on multiple conditions.
The code is as follows
def fetch_items
items= line_items.reject(&driving?)
if new_order_history_enabled?
items = items.reject{ |li| li.expenses == 0 }
end
items
end
def driving?
proc { |line_item| LineItemType.new(line_item, segment).drive? }
end
Is there a one liner or a more cleaner way to write this?
Something like
items= line_items.reject { |li| li.driving? && ( new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)}
items= line_items.reject { |li| li.driving? || (new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)}
Since you want both to apply here, I think you should use || instead of &&
That way, you are actually doing what you describe in your method. (and you only iterate once over the array, which is cool :) )
Although, and this is stylistic preference. I would prefer to do:
items = line_items.reject do |li|
li.driving? ||
(new_order_history_enabled? && li.expenses == 0)
end
since it might be clearer at a glance what we are doing
Personally I don't think a one-liner is always cleaner, especially when it's a long one-liner. The style that (to me) is cleaner, is to write:
def fetch_items
items= line_items.reject(&:driving?)
items= items.reject(&:zero_expenses?) if new_order_history_enabled?
end
def driving?
proc { |line_item| LineItemType.new(line_item, segment).drive? }
end
# in the LineItem class, define the zero_expenses? method:
def zero_expenses?
expenses.zero?
end
I want to convert all the values in a nested hash to a utf8 compatible string. I initially thought this would be easy and something like deep_apply should be available for me to use, but I am unable to find anything this simple on a quick google and SO search.
I do not want to write (maintain) a method similar to the lines of Change values in a nested hash . Is there a native API implementation or a shorthand available for this or do I have to write my own method?
I ended up implementing my own approach, that is in no way perfect but works well for my use case and should be easy to maintain. Posting it here for reference to anyone who wants to try it out
def deep_apply object, klasses, &blk
if object.is_a? Array
object.map { |obj_ele| deep_apply(obj_ele, klasses, &blk) }
elsif object.is_a? Hash
object.update(object) {|_, value| deep_apply(value, klasses, &blk) }
elsif klasses.any? { |klass| object.is_a? klass }
blk.call(object)
else
object
end
end
usage:
=> pry(main)> deep_apply({a: [1, 2, "sadsad"]}, [String, Integer]) { |v| v.to_s + "asd" }
=> {:a=>["1asd", "2asd", "sadsadasd"]}
Interesting to learn of the deep_merge approach taken in the answer by "The F". Here is another approach which requires adding a few helper methods.
First, the helper methods:
From the top answer here (converting-a-nested-hash-into-a-flat-hash):
def flat_hash(h,f=[],g={})
return g.update({ f=>h }) unless h.is_a? Hash
h.each { |k,r| flat_hash(r,f+[k],g) }
g
end
From a Github repo called ruby-bury (this functionality was proposed to Ruby core, but rejected)
class Hash
def bury *args
if args.count < 2
raise ArgumentError.new("2 or more arguments required")
elsif args.count == 2
self[args[0]] = args[1]
else
arg = args.shift
self[arg] = {} unless self[arg]
self[arg].bury(*args) unless args.empty?
end
self
end
end
And then a method tying it together:
def change_all_values(hash, &blk)
# the next line makes the method "pure functional"
# but can be removed otherwise.
hash = Marshal.load(Marshal.dump(hash))
flat_hash(hash).each { |k,v| hash.bury(*(k + [blk.call(v)])) }
hash
end
A usage example:
irb(main):063:0> a = {a: 1, b: { c: 1 } }
=> {:a=>1, :b=>{:c=>1}}
irb(main):064:0> b = change_all_values(a) { |val| val + 1 }
=> {:a=>2, :b=>{:c=>2}}
irb(main):066:0> a
=> {:a=>1, :b=>{:c=>1}}
There is deep_merge
yourhash.deep_merge(yourhash) {|_,_,v| v.to_s}
Merge the hash with itself, inspect the value and call to_s on it.
This method requires require 'active_support/core_ext/hash' at the top of file if you are not using ruby on rails.
Obviously, you may handle the conversion of v inside the deep_merge as you like to meet your requirements.
In rails console:
2.3.0 :001 > h1 = { a: true, b: { c: [1, 2, 3] } }
=> {:a=>true, :b=>{:c=>[1, 2, 3]}}
2.3.0 :002 > h1.deep_merge(h1) { |_,_,v| v.to_s}
=> {:a=>"true", :b=>{:c=>"[1, 2, 3]"}}
Well, it's quite simple to write it - so why don't write your own and be absolutely sure how does it behave in all situations ;)
def to_utf8(h)
if h.is_a? String
return h.force_encoding('utf-8')
elsif h.is_a? Symbol
return h.to_s.force_encoding('utf-8').to_sym
elsif h.is_a? Numeric
return h
elsif h.is_a? Array
return h.map { |e| to_utf8(e) }.to_s
else
return h.to_s.force_encoding('utf-8')
end
return hash.to_a.map { |e| result.push(to_utf8(e[0], e[1])) }.to_h
end
You may want to check if all behavior and conversions are correct - and change it if necessary.
I want to implement a tagging system similar to stackoverflow, there is a box with a tags at top right corner, and also I have links to delete tag from params hash. my method works correctly in browser. But I can't find a way to test it.
def tags_list_with_destroy_links
if params[:tags]
li = ""
p = params[:tags].split("+") # '/tagged/sea+ship+sun' => ['sea', 'ship', 'sun']
p.map do |t|
remove_link = if p.count >= 3
c = p.reject {|item| item == t }
a = c.join("+")
{:tags => a}
elsif p.count == 2
c = p.reject {|item| item == t }
{tags: c[0]}
else
questions_url
end
li << content_tag(:li) do
link_to(t, questions_tags_path(t), class: 'tag') +
link_to( '', remove_link , class: 'icon-small icons-cross')
end
end
ul = content_tag(:ul, li.html_safe)
ul << tag(:hr)
end
end
I've tried:
it 'return list with selected tags' do
#Rails.application.routes.url_helpers.stub(:questions_tags).and_return('/questions/tagged/sea+ship+sun')
#helper.request.stub(:path).and_return('/questions/tagged/sea+ship+sun')
helper.stub(:url_for, {controller:'questions', action: 'index', tags:'sea+ship+sun'} ).and_return('/questions/tagged/sea+ship+sun')
helper.params[:tags] = 'sea+ship+sun'
helper.tags_list_with_destroy_links.should == 'list_with_tags'
end
but it return:
<a class=\"tag\" href=\"/questions/tagged/sea+ship+sun\">sea</a><a class=\"icon-small icons-cross\" href=\"/questions/tagged/sea+ship+sun\"></a></li>
and shoud return remove link as
href="/questions/tagged/ship+sun" without sea
I would appreciate any advice
The params field is going to come back parsed into the correct ruby data structures (hash, array, string, etc). There's no need to manually split items such as +, if there is a nested param it will return as part of the params object:
{tags: ["sea", "ship", "sun"]}
To access your data, or create an assumption about your param data existing in the test, you're going to want to create a stub. You're almost there, try something more along the lines of:
helper.stub!(:params).and_return({tags: ["sea", "ship", "sun"]})
Once you have the params stubbed correctly you can check the output of your helper method to ensure it's validity (this is called the expectation):
expect(helper.tags_list_with_destroy_links).to eq("some_url")
I am using Ruby on Rails 3.0.9, RSpec-rails 2 and FactoryGirl. I am trying to check the kind_of?, to count, ... items present in an array using\inside the RSpec its feature. That is, I would like to make something like the following:
subject do
Factory(
:user,
:articles => 3.times.inject([]) { |articles,i|
articles << Factory(
:article,
:user_id => Factory(:user)
)
}
end
# Note the (wrong!) usage of 'first', 'count' methods
its(:articles) { first.should be_kind_of(Article) }
its(:articles) { count.should == 10 }
But, since I get errors, it seems not possible to make that in the (wrong!) way I made it in the above code. Is there a way to do that (to check the kind_of?, count, ...)?
http://rdoc.info/github/rspec/rspec-core/master/RSpec/Core/Subject/ClassMethods:its:
describe Person do
subject do
Person.new.tap do |person|
person.phone_numbers << "555-1212"
end
end
its("phone_numbers.first") { should eq("555-1212") }
end
so in your case:
its('articles.first') { should be_kind_of(Article) }
its('articles.count') { should == 10 }