The data source I am working with is terrible. Some places where you would expect integers, you get "Three". In the phone number field, you may get "the phone # is xxx". Some fields are simply blank.
This is OK, as I'm parsing each field so "Three" will end up in my model as integer 3, phone numbers (and such) will be extracted via regex. Users of the service KNOW that the data is sketchy and incomplete, as it's an unfortunate fact of the way our data source is maintained and there's nothing we can do about it but step up our parsing game! As an aside, we are producing our own version of the data slowly as we parse more and more of the original data, but this poor source has to do for now.
So users select the data they wish to parse, and we do what we can, returning a partial/incorrect model. Now the final model that we want to store should be validated - there are certain fields that can't be null, certain strings must adhere to a format and so on.
The flow of the app is:
User tells the service which data to
parse.
Service goes off and grabs
the data, parses what it can and
returns a partial model with
whatever data it could retrieve.
We display the data to the user,
allowing them to make corrections
and to fill in any mandatory fields
for which no data was collected.
This user-corrected data is to be
saved, and therefore validated.
If validation fails, show data again
for user to make fixes, rinse &
repeat.
What is the best way to go about having a model which starts off being potentially completely invalid or containing no data, but which needs to be validated eventually? The two ways I've thought of (and partially implemented) are:
2 models - a Data model, which has validations etc, and an UnconfirmedData model, which has no validations. The original data is put into an UnconfirmedData model until the user has made their corrections, at which point it it put into a Data model and validation is attempted.
One model, with a "confirmed data" flag, with validation being performed manually rather than Rails' validation.
In practice I lean towards using 2 models, but I'm pretty new to Rails so I thought there me be a nicer way to do this, Rails has a habit of surprising me like that :)
Must you save your data in between requests? If so, I would use your two model format, but use Single Table Inheritance (STI) to keep things dry.
The first model, the one responsible for the parsing and the rendering and the doing-the-best-it-can, shouldn't have any validations or restrictions on saving it. It should however have the type column in the migration so you can use the inheritance goodness. If you don't know what I'm talking about, read up on the wealth of information on STI, a good place to start would be a definitive guide.
The second model would be the one you would use in the rest of the application, the strict model, the one which has all the validations. Every time a user submitted reworked and potentially valid data, your app would try and move your instance of the open model created from the params, to an instance of the second model, and see if it was valid. If it was, save it to the database, and the type attribute will change, and everything will be wonderful. If it isn't valid, save the first instance, and return the second instance to the user so the validation error messages can be used.
class ArticleData < ActiveRecord::Base
def parse_from_url(url)
# parses some stuff from the data source
end
end
class Article < ArticleData
validates_presence_of :title, :body
validates_length_of :title, :greater_than => 20
# ...
end
You'll need a pretty intense controller action to facilitate the above process, but it shouldn't be too difficult. In the rest of your application, make sure you run your queries on the Article model to only get back valid ones.
Hope this helps!
Using one model should be straightforward enough. You'll need an attribute/method to determine whether the validations should be performed. You can pass :if => to bypass/enable them:
validates_presence_of :title, :if => :should_validate
should_validate can be a simple boolean attribute that returns false when the model instance is "provisional", or a more complicated method if necessary.
Related
I have designed a very simple web application which associates authors, books and ratings.
In each of the respective models
Author
has_many :books
Book
belongs_to :author
has_many :reviews
Review
belongs_to :book
Model attributes
Author : title, fname, lname, DOB
Book : ISBN, title, publish_date, pages
Review : rating(1-5), description
I am wondering if I completely validate all of these attributes to my liking in the models, 1 attribute for example
validates :ISBN, :only_integer => true, length: { is: 13 }
do I need to worry about validations for data elsewhere?
I know that validations for the model run on the server side so there may need to be some validation on the client side (in JS). I am trying to ensure that there are no flaws when it comes to asserting data correctness.
As is so often the case: it depends.
In a simple Rails application, all models will be updated through a view request to a controller which in turn fills in the params into the models, then tries to save the model and any validation errors that occur are rendered back to the server.
In that scenario, all your code will have to do is to react to failed calls to #save but you can sleep soundly knowing that everything in your database is how it is supposed to be.
In more complex applications, putting all the validation logic into your model might not work as well anymore: every call to #save will have to run through all the validation logic, slowing things down, and different parts of your application might have different requirements to the input parameters.
In that scenario there are many ways to go about it. Form objects with validations specific to the forms they represent are a very common solution. These form models then distribute their input among one or more underlying ActiveRecord models.
But the Rails way is to take these one step at a time and avoid premature optimization. For the foreseeable future, putting your validation into your model will be enough to guarantee consistency.
do I need to worry about validations for data elsewhere?
Yes you do.
Application level validations are still prone to race conditions.
For things that should be unique like for example ISBN numbers database constraints are vital if uniqueness is to be guarenteed. Other areas where this can cause issues are when you have a limit on the count of an association.
While validations prevent most errors they are not a replacement for database constraints to ensure the correctness of data. Both are needed if correctness is important.
With ActiveRecord models, I know you can validate the length of an input field like so
class User
validates :user_name, length: { maximum: 20 }
end
However, one of the design patterns in Rails recommends thin models. If you have a ton of validations, the above code might seem intimidating. I read there was another way you could do this.
You can simply use an ActiveRecord::Schema to accomplish the same task.
class CreateUsers < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :users do |t|
t.string :user_name, limit: 20
end
end
end
That accomplishes the exact same thing only you don't even need the second line in your Users model.
What is the standard Rails convention regarding this?
Some people would argue that you have to have skinny controllers and skinny models. However, this can create several additional classes in your application.
Sometimes having a fat model if documented and laid out logically can be easier to read. I will ignore the 'best practices' if it makes the code easier to read as I may not always be the only person touching that code. If the application scales to a point where multiple people will be accessing the same files, I will consider extracting it at that point as a refactor. However, this has rarely been the case.
While it is good to set limits on your database, you also want to have client validations to prevent someone having their data truncated with no feedback to them. For example, (a really horrible example), if you were to limit the username of an User to only six characters and I type in kobaltz as my username, I will wonder why my username/password never works as the database truncated it to kobalt. You will also run into issues where MySQL (or similar) will throw database level errors which is annoying to fix/troubleshoot. You also have to consider if modifying a database in production, if you set the limits where they did not exist before, you could end up corrupting your data.
Having a few validations in your model does not make it a 'fat' model in my opinion. It makes it easier to read. If you're not using an IDE like RubyMine and only using an editor, you do not have the luxury of Jump to Definition which can make the abstraction of your model easier to follow.
If you use second approach, you won't be able to get the error. Its on mysql level and not on model level, so active record won't tell you the reason for user not getting created or updated.
object.errors
will be empty.
Check this
http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveModel/Errors/full_messages
I have a User and a StripeCustomer model. Every User embeds one and accepts_nested_attributes_for StripeCustomer.
When creating a new user, I always create a corresponding StripeCustomer and if you provide either a CC or a coupon code, I create a subscription.
In my StripeCustomer:
attr_accessible :coupon_id, :stripe_card_token
What I'd like to do is, if the coupon is invalid, do:
errors.add :coupon_id, "bad coupon id"
So that normal rails controller patters like:
if #stripe_customer.save
....
else
....
end
will just work. And be able to use normal rails field_with_errors stuff for handling a bad coupon.
So the question is, at which active record callback should I call Stripe::Customer.create and save the stripe_customer_token?
I had it on before_create, because I want it done only if you are really going to persist the record. But this does strange things with valid? and worse, if you are going to create it via a User, the save of User and StripeCustomer actually succeeds even if you do errors.add in the before_create callback! I think the issue is that the save will only fail if you add errors and return false at before_validation.
That last part I'm not sure if it is a mongoid issue or not.
I could move it to before_validation :on => :create but then it would create a new Stripe::Customer even if I just called valid? which I don't want.
Anyway, I'm generically curious about what the best practices are with any model that is backed by or linked to a record on a remote service and how to handle errors.
Ok here is what I did, I split the calls to stripe into 2 callbacks, one at before_validation and one before_create (or before_update).
In the before_validation, I do whatever I can to check the uncontrolled inputs (directly from user) are valid. In the stripe case that just means the coupon code so I check with stripe that it is valid and add errors to :coupon_code as needed.
Actually creating/updating customers with stripe, I wait to do until before_create/before_update (I use two instead of just doing before_save because I handle these two cases differently). If there is an error then, I just don't handle the exception instead of trying to add to errors after validation which (a) doesn't really make any sense and (b) sort of works but fails to prevent saves on nested models (in mongoid anyway, which is very bad and strange).
This way I know by the time I get to persisting, that all the attributes are sound. Something could of course still fail but I've minimized my risk substantially. Now I can also do things like call valid? without worrying about creating records with stripe I didn't want.
In retrospect this seems pretty obvious.
I'm not sure I totally understand the scenario. you wrote:
Every User embeds one and accepts_nested_attributes_for StripeUser
Did you mean StripeCustomer?
So you have a User that has a Customer that holds the coupon info?
If so, I think it should be enough to accept nested attributed for the customer in the user, put the validation in the customer code and that's it.
See here
Let me know if I got your question wrong...
One of the messier practices I have in Rails development is juggling validations of associated fields between validating the actual object (eg: validates_presence_of :related_object) and validating on the id column for that association (eg: validates_presence_of :related_object_id).
I figure I should probably start being a little more consistent with this, and before I commit to anything, I'm wondering if there's any advantage of either method over the other? I can't think of anything, but then I've been known to overlook stuff before. So, does it make any difference? Is there a convention re: what most developers do that I should abide by?
Any suggestions appreciated.
This question comes up every so often.
In most cases you will want to validate the presence of the actual associated object, not just verify that an id (which could well be invalid) has been set.
Validating association_id will also prevent you from creating the object with a new association record and saving both together.
Of course you have to check the presence of :object_id. If you check the presence of :object then this object will be fetched from your DB and then will be checked via simple blank?. I guess you won't be happy with additional DB hit.
I have a model called Contacts.
Contacts can have different status "bad, positive, wrong..."
These status may need to be changed over time, but across all contacts, they are the same options.
Should I model it this way:
Contacts.rb
belongs_to :status_contact
StatusContacts.rb
has_many :contacts
Then I manually populate the types of status in the table?
I then want to use Ajax to click a button corresponding to a value to update the value for Contacts.
It looks like you're trying to ensure that the values for your status are always going to restricted to a set of possible answers of your choosing. If that's all you're trying to do, there's no special need for a separate table. You can use the magic of ActiveRecord validations instead here.
First, create a string database column for Contact called :status.
Then you can use a validation to ensure that the values are limited to the ones you want. In Rails 3, you can do it like this:
validate :status, :inclusion => { :in => %w( bad positive wrong ) }
(If you're using Rails 2, use #validates_inclusion_of instead.)
In ActiveRecord, validations check that the object's values are valid before saving; it refuses to persist the object into the database until all validations pass.
Your naming strikes me as a little weird—ContactStatus sounds a little nicer to me—but I see this as being the general idea to achieve what you want.
No clear answer yet --- I think I need to use the table because it would allow the users to add and modify the types of status used across their application.