(This is not the actual code I'm using, although this sums up the idea of what I want to do)
class Connection < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :connection1, :polymorphic => true
belongs_to :connection2, :polymorphic => true
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :followers, :class_name => 'Connection', :as => :connection1
has_many :followings, :class_name => 'Connection', :as => :connection2
end
My question is that I want to know how I will be able to create a method called "network" such that what is returned isn't an array. Like so,
u = User.first
u.network # this will return a merged version of :followings and :followers
So that I'll still be able to do this:
u.network.find_by_last_name("James")
ETA:
Or hmm, I think my question really boils down to if it is possible to create a method that will merge 2 has_many associations in such a way that I can still call on its find_by methods.
Are you sure that you want a collection of Connections, rather than a collection of Users?
If it's a collection of Connections that you need, it seems like you'll be well served by a class method on Connection (or scope, if you like such things).
connection.rb
class Connection < ActiveRecord::Base
class << self
def associated_with_model_id(model, model_id)
include([:connection1, :connection2]).
where("(connection1_type IS #{model} AND connection1_id IS #{model_id})
OR (connection2_type IS #{model} AND connection2_id IS #{model_id})")
end
end
end
user.rb
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
def network
Connection.associated_with_model_id(self.class.to_s, id)
end
end
Probably not as useful as you'd like, but maybe it'll give you some ideas.
Related
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 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
class Newsroom < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :blog_posts
has_many :quote_posts
end
class BlogPost < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :newsroom
end
class QuotePost < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :newsroom
end
I would like to have an instance method, such that I could do #newsroom.posts to get a collection of blog_posts and quote_posts sorted by created_at.
def posts
#posts ||= #load and sort blog_posts, quote_posts, etc
end
What is the best and most efficient way to accomplish this? I have looked into using default_scope, something like:
default_scope :include => [:blog_posts, :quote_posts]
def posts
#posts ||= [blog_posts + quote_posts].flatten.sort{|x,y| x.created_at <=> y.created_at}
end
But I would rather keep the sorting at the database level, if possible. Any suggestions on how to accomplish this? Thanks.
Try something like this:
#app/models/newsroom.rb
scope :ordered_posts, lambda {
includes(:blog_posts,:quote_posts) & BlogPost.order("created_at asc") & QuotePost.order("created_at asc")
}
ARel should be able to handle the ordering of included Quote and Blog Posts. You could clean that up slightly by having scopes in both the BlogPost and QuotePost model that order by created_at and then use those scopes in the Newsroom#ordered_posts method.
I ended up using a polymorphic post model. This seems to give me what I want with the insignificant downside of having an extra model/table. I used delegate to hand off specific attribute getter methods to the correct model.
class Newsroom < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :posts
end
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
belong_to :blog_post, :polymorphic => true
delegate :title, :author, :etc, :to => :postable
end
class BlogPost < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :post, :as => :postable
end
I am putting together a messaging system for a rails app I am working on.
I am building it in a similar fashion to facebook's system, so messages are grouped into threads, etc.
My related models are:
MsgThread - main container of a thread
Message - each message/reply in thread
Recipience - ties to user to define which users should subscribe to this thread
Read - determines whether or not a user has read a specific message
My relationships look like
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
#stuff...
has_many :msg_threads, :foreign_key => 'originator_id' #threads the user has started
has_many :recipiences
has_many :subscribed_threads, :through => :recipiences, :source => :msg_thread #threads the user is subscribed to
end
class MsgThread < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :messages
has_many :recipiences
belongs_to :originator, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => "originator_id"
end
class Recipience < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :msg_thread
end
class Message < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :msg_thread
belongs_to :author, :class_name => "User", :foreign_key => "author_id"
end
class Read < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :message
end
I'd like to create a new selector in the user sort of like:
has_many :updated_threads, :through => :recipiencies, :source => :msg_thread, :conditions => {THREAD CONTAINS MESSAGES WHICH ARE UNREAD (have no 'read' models tying a user to a message)}
I was thinking of either writing a long condition with multiple joins, or possibly writing giving the model an updated_threads method to return this, but I'd like to see if there is an easier way first. Am I able to pass some kind of nested hash into the conditions instead of a string?
Any ideas? Also, if there is something fundamentally wrong with my structure for this functionality let me know! Thanks!!
UPDATE:
While I would still appreciate input on better possibilities if they exist, this is what I have gotten working now:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
# stuff...
def updated_threads
MsgThread.find_by_sql("
SELECT msg_threads.* FROM msg_threads
INNER JOIN messages ON messages.msg_thread_id = msg_threads.id
INNER JOIN recipiences ON recipiences.msg_thread_id = msg_threads.id
WHERE (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM `reads` WHERE reads.message_id = messages.id AND reads.user_id = #{self.id}) = 0
AND (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM recipiences WHERE recipiences.user_id = #{self.id} AND recipiences.msg_thread_id = msg_threads.id) > 0
")
end
end
Seems to be working fine!
Also to check if a specific thread (and message) are read:
class Message < ActiveRecord::Base
# stuff...
def read?(user_id)
Read.exists?(:user_id => user_id, :message_id => self.id)
end
end
class MsgThread < ActiveRecord::Base
# stuff...
def updated?(user_id)
updated = false
self.messages.each { |m| updated = true if !m.read?(user_id) }
updated
end
end
Any suggestions to improve this?
Add a named_scope to the MsgThread model:
class MsgThread < ActiveRecord::Base
named_scope :unread_threads, lambda { |user|
{
:include => [{:messages=>[:reads]}, recipiencies],
:conditions => ["recipiences.user_id = ? AND reads.message_id IS NULL",
user.id],
:group => "msg_threads.id"
}}
end
Note: Rails uses LEFT OUTER JOIN for :include. Hence the IS NULL check works.
Now you can do the following:
MsgThread.unread_threads(current_user)
Second part can be written as:
class Message
has_many :reads
def read?(usr)
reads.exists?(:user_id => usr.id)
end
end
class MsgThread < ActiveRecord::Base
def updated?(usr)
messages.first(:joins => :reads,
:conditions => ["reads.user_id = ? ", usr.id]
) != nil
end
end
You might want to take a look at Arel, which can help with complex SQL queries. I believe (don't quote me) this is already baked into Rails3.
I've run into a situation that I am not quite sure how to model.
EDIT: The code below now represent a working solution. I am still interested in nicer looking solutions, though.
Suppose I have a User class, and a user has many services. However, these services are quite different, for example a MailService and a BackupService, so single table inheritance won't do. Instead, I am thinking of using polymorphic associations together with an abstract base class:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :services
end
class Service < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id, :implementation_id, :implementation_type
validates_uniqueness_of :user_id, :scope => :implementation_type
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :implementation, :polymorphic => true, :dependent => :destroy
delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :implementation
end
#Base class for service implementations
class ServiceImplementation < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id, :on => :create
#Virtual attribute, allows us to create service implementations in one step
attr_accessor :user_id
has_one :service, :as => :implementation
after_create :create_service_record
#Tell Rails this class does not use a table.
def self.abstract_class?
true
end
#Name of the service.
def name
self.class.name
end
#Returns the user this service
#implementation belongs to.
def user
unless service.nil?
service.user
else #Service not yet created
#my_user ||= User.find(user_id) rescue nil
end
end
#Sets the user this
#implementation belongs to.
def user=(usr)
#my_user = usr
user_id = usr.id
end
protected
#Sets up a service object after object creation.
def create_service_record
service = Service.new(:user_id => user_id)
service.implementation = self
service.save!
end
end
class MailService < ServiceImplementation
#validations, etc...
def common_service_method
puts "MailService implementation of common service method"
end
end
#Example usage
MailService.create(..., :user => user)
BackupService.create(...., :user => user)
user.services.each do |s|
puts "#{user.name} is using #{s.name}"
end #Daniel is using MailService, Daniel is using BackupService
Notice that I want the Service instance to be implictly created when I create a new service.
So, is this the best solution? Or even a good one? How have you solved this kind of problem?
I don't think your current solution will work. If ServiceImplementation is abstract, what will the associated classes point to? How does the other end of the has_one work, if ServiceImplementation doesn't have a pk persisted to the database? Maybe I'm missing something.
EDIT: Whoops, my original didn't work either. But the idea is still there. Instead of a module, go ahead and use Service with STI instead of polymorphism, and extend it with individual implementations. I think you're stuck with STI and a bunch of unused columns across different implementations, or rethinking the services relationship in general. The delegation solution you have might work as a separate ActiveRecord, but I don't see how it works as abstract if it has to have a has_one relationship.
EDIT: So instead of your original abstract solution, why not persist the delgates? You'd have to have separate tables for MailServiceDelegate and BackupServiceDelegate -- not sure how to get around that if you want to avoid all the null columns with pure STI. You can use a module with the delgate classes to capture the common relationships and validations, etc. Sorry it took me a couple of passes to catch up with your problem:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :services
end
class Service < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :user_id
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :service_delegate, :polymorphic => true
delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :service_delegate
end
class MailServiceDelegate < ActiveRecord::Base
include ServiceDelegate
def name
# implement
end
def common_service_method
# implement
end
end
class BackupServiceDelegate < ActiveRecord::Base
include ServiceDelegate
def name
# implement
end
def common_service_method
# implement
end
end
module ServiceDelegate
def self.included(base)
base.has_one :service, :as => service_delegate
end
def name
raise "Not Implemented"
end
def common_service_method
raise "Not Implemented"
end
end
I think following will work
in user.rb
has_many :mail_service, :class_name => 'Service'
has_many :backup_service, :class_name => 'Service'
in service.rb
belongs_to :mail_user, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id', :conditions=> is_mail=true
belongs_to :backup_user, :class_name => 'User', :foreign_key => 'user_id', :conditions=> is_mail=false