SearchLogic problems due to caching of method calls - ruby-on-rails

I am trying to use the searchlogic gem to perform searches over a couple tables Post has_many assets. I need it to perform left outer joins rather than inner joins in the event of a non-existant asset.
From what I have below the query is generated with the required outer joins, and passes the first three tests, but fails on the last. However, if I only run the last test it then passes.
The reason for the failing is that the #search_logic_filter var is only being set on the first test and is used for all of the remaining tests.
The reason for the setting of the #search_logic_filter in this way is that it is the only call to method_missing that carries the param passed to the dynamic searchlogic method call of Post.title_or_body_or...like("fun")
Is there a better way to set the filter param?
test "find posts and assets by filter for user" do
customer = users(:customer)
create_post_for_user(customer, {:body => "Rails is fun", :tags => "rails ruby"})
create_post_for_user(customer, {:body => "Fun is what Emacs is all about", :title => "emacs"})
# File with post
asset_post = create_post_for_user(customer, {:body => "Ruby is pretty fun too",
:tags => "ruby"})
asset_post.assets << Asset.new(:upload_file_name => "ruby_tips",
:upload_file_size => 100,
:upload_content_type => "text")
asset_post.save
# search post
assert_equal 3, Post.find_for_user(customer.id, "fun").size
assert_equal 2, Post.find_for_user(customer.id, "ruby").size
assert_equal 1, Post.find_for_user(customer.id, "emacs").size
# search asset
puts "about to run last test"
assert_equal 1, Post.find_for_user(customer.id, "ruby_tips").size
end
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.find_for_user(user_id, filter, page=1)
Post.
user_id_equals(user_id).
title_or_body_or_tags_or_assets_upload_file_name_like(filter).all
end
class << self
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
if name.to_s =~ /\w+_or_\w+_like$/
# ** only gets here once **
#search_logic_filter = args.first
super
elsif name == :assets_upload_file_name_like
# args is [] here which is the reason for the above setting of #search_logic_filter
named_scope :assets_upload_file_name_like, lambda {
{:joins => "left outer join assets on posts.id = assets.post_id",
:conditions => "assets.upload_file_name like '%#{#search_logic_filter}%'"}
}
assets_upload_file_name_like
else
super
end
end
end
end
** update
This is the query that is run for the final test. Notice that the upload_file_name param is 'fun', not 'ruby_tips'. The 'fun' param exists for all the tests for the upload_file_name col, but it only matters for the last test.
SELECT `posts`.*
FROM `posts`
left outer join assets
on posts.id = assets.post_id
WHERE (
((posts.title LIKE '%ruby_tips%') OR (posts.body LIKE '%ruby_tips%') OR (posts.tags LIKE '%ruby_tips%') OR (assets.upload_file_name like '%fun%'))
AND (posts.user_id = 20549131)
)

You should not declare the named_scope assets_upload_file_name_like that way. When it's called the first time, the assets_upload_file_name_like named scope is defined with the the value for :conditions generated according the value of #search_logic_filter at that time. You should set the parameter on the lambda instead.
There's also no need to use method_missing. Just declare the named_scope within the Post class. As a bonus, the query should be filtered to guard against SQL injection attacks.
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
named_scope :assets_upload_file_name_like, lambda { |file_name| {
:joins => "left outer join assets on posts.id = assets.post_id",
# Prevent SQL injection.
:conditions => ["assets.upload_file_name like ?", "%#{file_name}%"]
}}
end

Related

Datagrid Gem in Rails 4 returns PG:UndefinedColumn: ERROR:

No hair left on my head (and I have had lots :) ), I have been pulling out my hair and for the life of me I can't figure this out.
I have a one to many relations between 2 tables. I have installed the Datagrid Gem for reporting. I need to get the report from one model based on the other one.
Please have a look at my code.
reports_grid.rb
class ReportsGrid
include Datagrid
scope do
Land.includes(:estate)
end
filter(:estate, :enum, :select => proc { Estate.group("title").select("title").map {|c| [c.title] }})
column(:id, :header => "Land ID")
column(:current_stage, :header => "Stage")
column(:price)
column(:status)
end
reports_controller.rb
class ReportsController < ApplicationController
def index
#grid = ReportsGrid.new(params[:reports_grid]) do |scope|
if params[:reports_grid].present?
if params[:reports_grid][:estate].present?
scope.joins(:estate).where("estates.title = ? ",params[:reports_grid][:estate]).page(params[:page])
**# when I get the #grid.assets here all good and return correct number of rows**
else
scope.page(params[:page])
end
else
scope.page(params[:page])
end
end
end
end
Land.rb
belongs_to :estate
estate.rb
has_many :lands
Now when I go to /reports and try to run the filter I get the following error
PG::UndefinedColumn: ERROR: column lands.estate does not exist LINE 1: ..._id" WHERE (estates.title = 'Olive Gardens' ) AND "lands"."e... ^ : SELECT COUNT(*) FROM "lands" INNER JOIN "estates" ON "estates"."id" = "lands"."estate_id" WHERE (estates.title = 'Olive Gardens' ) AND "lands"."estate" = 'Olive Gardens'
Why is the Gem tries to add "lands"."estate" = 'Olive Gardens' to the query when I have defined it at the instance.
Please let me know if you need me to add anything. Thank you in advance.
Edit:
This is what I have done and worked in the Filter:
I have done this:
filter(:estate_id, :enum,
:select => lambda {Estate.all.map {|p| [p.title, p.id]}},
:multiple => false,
:include_blank => true
) do |value|
self.where(:lands => {:estate_id => value})
end
Do you it is a good approach?
I guess in the scope I could say Land.joins(:estate) then use the scope.all.map... in the query.
Datagrid filter designed to filter data but not to just be by default.
If you have some reason why estate should not filter data by itself then add :dummy => true option:
filter(:estate, :enum, :select => ..., :dummy => true)
But I'would recommend it. Do this instead and your hair will start growing instantly:
filter(:estate, :enum, :select => ...) do |scope, value|
scope.joins(:estate).where("estates.title = ? ", value)
end
It seems obvious from documentation here:
https://github.com/bogdan/datagrid/wiki/Filters#filter-block
Try using references
Land.includes(:estate).references(:estates)

Rails ActiveRecord callback messup

This is driving nuts. I have a dead simple callback functions to initialize and validate a class children as such:
class A < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :bs
after_initialize :add_t_instance
validate :has_only_one_t
protected
def add_t_instance
bs << B.new(:a => self, :type => "T") unless bs.map(&:type).count("T") > 0
end
def has_only_one_t
unless bs.map(&:type).count("T") < 2
errors.add(:bs, 'has too many Ts")
end
end
end
and now, here comes the magic at runtime:
a = A.new
>>[#<A>]
a.bs
>> [#<T>]
a.save
>> true
a.id
>> 15
so far it's all going great, but:
s = A.find(15)
s.bs
>>[#<T>,#<T>]
s.bs.count
>> 2
s.valid?
>> false
s.errors.full_messages
>> "Too many Ts"
What the heck am I missing here?!?! What in the world could be adding the second #T?
Confusingly (to me at least) after_initialize is called whenever an active record object is instantiated, not only after creating a new instance, but also after loading an existing one from the database. So you create the second B when you run A.find(15).
You could solve the problem by checking whether you are dealing with a new record in your callback, e.g.
def add_t_instance
if new_record?
bs << B.new(:a => self, :type => "T") unless bs.map(&:type).count("T") > 0
end
end
or you could place a condition on the before_initialize declaration itself, or perhaps try using a before_create callback.

Rails - Using a before_filter to run a method

I would like this before filter to run every time the page is loaded (for now) to check if an item is over 7 days old or not and if so, run some actions on it to update its attributes.
I have before_filter :update_it in the application controller. update_it is defined below that in the same controller as:
def update_it
#books = Book.all
#books.each do |book|
book.update_queue
end
end
Then update_queue is defined in the book model. Here's everything in the model that pertains to this:
scope :my_books, lambda {|user_id|
{:conditions => {:user_id => user_id}}
}
scope :reading_books, lambda {
{:conditions => {:reading => 1}}
}
scope :latest_first, lambda {
{:order => "created_at DESC"}
}
def move_from_queue_to_reading
self.update_attributes(:queued => false, :reading => 1);
end
def move_from_reading_to_list
self.update_attributes(:reading => 0);
end
def update_queue
days_gone = (Date.today - Date.parse(Book.where(:reading => 1).last.created_at.to_s)).to_i
# If been 7 days since last 'currently reading' book created
if days_gone >= 7
# If there's a queued book, move it to 'currently reading'
if Book.my_books(user_id).where(:queued => true)
new_book = Book.my_books(user_id).latest_first.where(:queued => true).last
new_book.move_from_queue_to_reading
currently_reading = Book.my_books(user_id).reading_books.last
currently_reading.move_from_reading_to_list
# Otherwise, create a new one
else
Book.my_books(user_id).create(:title => "Sample book", :reading => 1)
end
end
end
My relationship is that a book belongs_to a user and a user has_many books. I'm showing these books in the view through the user show view, not that it matters though.
So the errors I keep getting are that move_from_queue_to_reading and move_from_reading_to_list are undefined methods. How can this be? I'm clearly defining them and then calling them below. I really am at a loss and would greatly appreciate some insight into what I'm doing wrong. I'm a beginner here, so any structured criticism would be great :)
EDIT
The exact error message I get and stack trace is as follows:
NoMethodError in UsersController#show
undefined method `move_from_queue_to_reading' for nil:NilClass
app/models/book.rb:41:in `update_queue'
app/controllers/application_controller.rb:22:in `block in update_it'
app/controllers/application_controller.rb:21:in `each'
app/controllers/application_controller.rb:21:in `update_it'
I suspect that the collection returned is an empty array (which is still 'truthy' when tested). So calling .last is returning nil to the new_book and currently_reading local variables. Try changing:
if Book.my_books(user_id).where(:queued => true)
to:
if Book.my_books(user_id).where(:queued => true).exists?
Additionally, you are modifying the scope when finding currently_reading. This can potentially cause the query to again return no results. Change:
currently_reading.move_from_reading_to_list
to:
currently_reading.move_from_reading_to_list if currently_reading

Trying to master Ruby. How can I optimize this method?

I'm learning new tricks all the time and I'm always on the lookout for better ideas.
I have this rather ugly method. How would you clean it up?
def self.likesit(user_id, params)
game_id = params[:game_id]
videolink_id = params[:videolink_id]
like_type = params[:like_type]
return false if like_type.nil?
if like_type == "videolink"
liked = Like.where(:user_id => user_id, :likeable_id => videolink_id, :likeable_type => "Videolink").first unless videolink_id.nil?
elsif like_type == "game"
liked = Like.where(:user_id => user_id, :likeable_id => game_id, :likeable_type => "Game").first unless game_id.nil?
end
if liked.present?
liked.amount = 1
liked.save
return true
else # not voted on before...create Like record
if like_type == "videolink"
Like.create(:user_id => user_id, :likeable_id => videolink_id, :likeable_type => "Videolink", :amount => 1)
elsif like_type == "game"
Like.create(:user_id => user_id, :likeable_id => game_id, :likeable_type => "Game", :amount => 1)
end
return true
end
return false
end
I would do something like:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :likes, :dependent => :destroy
def likes_the(obj)
like = likes.find_or_initialize_by_likeable_type_and_likeable_id(obj.class.name, obj.id)
like.amount += 1
like.save
end
end
User.first.likes_the(VideoLink.first)
First, I think its wrong to deal with the "params" hash on the model level. To me its a red flag when you pass the entire params hash to a model. Thats in the scope of your controllers, your models should have no knowledge of the structure of your params hash, imo.
Second, I think its always cleaner to use objects when possible instead of class methods. What you are doing deals with an object, no reason to perform this on the class level. And finding the objects should be trivial in your controllers. After all this is the purpose of the controllers. To glue everything together.
Finally, eliminate all of the "return false" and "return true" madness. The save method takes care of that. The last "return false" in your method will never be called, because the if else clause above prevents it. In my opinion you should rarely be calling "return" in ruby, since ruby always returns the last evaluated line. In only use return if its at the very top of the method to handle an exception.
Hope this helps.
I'm not sure what the rest of your code looks like but you might consider this as a replacement:
def self.likesit(user_id, params)
return false unless params[:like_type]
query = {:user_id => user_id,
:likeable_id => eval("params[:#{params[:like_type]}_id]"),
:likeable_type => params[:like_type].capitalize}
if (liked = Like.where(query).first).present?
liked.amount = 1
liked.save
else # not voted on before...create Like record
Like.create(query.merge({:amount => 1}))
end
end
I assume liked.save and Like.create return true if they are succesful, otherwise nil is returned. And what about the unless game_id.nil? ? Do you really need that? If it's nil, it's nil and saved as nil. But you might as well check in your data model for nil's. (validations or something)

Overriding id on create in ActiveRecord

Is there any way of overriding a model's id value on create? Something like:
Post.create(:id => 10, :title => 'Test')
would be ideal, but obviously won't work.
id is just attr_protected, which is why you can't use mass-assignment to set it. However, when setting it manually, it just works:
o = SomeObject.new
o.id = 8888
o.save!
o.reload.id # => 8888
I'm not sure what the original motivation was, but I do this when converting ActiveHash models to ActiveRecord. ActiveHash allows you to use the same belongs_to semantics in ActiveRecord, but instead of having a migration and creating a table, and incurring the overhead of the database on every call, you just store your data in yml files. The foreign keys in the database reference the in-memory ids in the yml.
ActiveHash is great for picklists and small tables that change infrequently and only change by developers. So when going from ActiveHash to ActiveRecord, it's easiest to just keep all of the foreign key references the same.
You could also use something like this:
Post.create({:id => 10, :title => 'Test'}, :without_protection => true)
Although as stated in the docs, this will bypass mass-assignment security.
Try
a_post = Post.new do |p|
p.id = 10
p.title = 'Test'
p.save
end
that should give you what you're looking for.
For Rails 4:
Post.create(:title => 'Test').update_column(:id, 10)
Other Rails 4 answers did not work for me. Many of them appeared to change when checking using the Rails Console, but when I checked the values in MySQL database, they remained unchanged. Other answers only worked sometimes.
For MySQL at least, assigning an id below the auto increment id number does not work unless you use update_column. For example,
p = Post.create(:title => 'Test')
p.id
=> 20 # 20 was the id the auto increment gave it
p2 = Post.create(:id => 40, :title => 'Test')
p2.id
=> 40 # 40 > the next auto increment id (21) so allow it
p3 = Post.create(:id => 10, :title => 'Test')
p3.id
=> 10 # Go check your database, it may say 41.
# Assigning an id to a number below the next auto generated id will not update the db
If you change create to use new + save you will still have this problem. Manually changing the id like p.id = 10 also produces this problem.
In general, I would use update_column to change the id even though it costs an extra database query because it will work all the time. This is an error that might not show up in your development environment, but can quietly corrupt your production database all the while saying it is working.
we can override attributes_protected_by_default
class Example < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.attributes_protected_by_default
# default is ["id", "type"]
["type"]
end
end
e = Example.new(:id => 10000)
Actually, it turns out that doing the following works:
p = Post.new(:id => 10, :title => 'Test')
p.save(false)
As Jeff points out, id behaves as if is attr_protected. To prevent that, you need to override the list of default protected attributes. Be careful doing this anywhere that attribute information can come from the outside. The id field is default protected for a reason.
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
private
def attributes_protected_by_default
[]
end
end
(Tested with ActiveRecord 2.3.5)
Post.create!(:title => "Test") { |t| t.id = 10 }
This doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that you would normally want to do, but it works quite well if you need to populate a table with a fixed set of ids (for example when creating defaults using a rake task) and you want to override auto-incrementing (so that each time you run the task the table is populate with the same ids):
post_types.each_with_index do |post_type|
PostType.create!(:name => post_type) { |t| t.id = i + 1 }
end
Put this create_with_id function at the top of your seeds.rb and then use it to do your object creation where explicit ids are desired.
def create_with_id(clazz, params)
obj = clazz.send(:new, params)
obj.id = params[:id]
obj.save!
obj
end
and use it like this
create_with_id( Foo, {id:1,name:"My Foo",prop:"My other property"})
instead of using
Foo.create({id:1,name:"My Foo",prop:"My other property"})
This case is a similar issue that was necessary overwrite the id with a kind of custom date :
# in app/models/calendar_block_group.rb
class CalendarBlockGroup < ActiveRecord::Base
...
before_validation :parse_id
def parse_id
self.id = self.date.strftime('%d%m%Y')
end
...
end
And then :
CalendarBlockGroup.create!(:date => Date.today)
# => #<CalendarBlockGroup id: 27072014, date: "2014-07-27", created_at: "2014-07-27 20:41:49", updated_at: "2014-07-27 20:41:49">
Callbacks works fine.
Good Luck!.
For Rails 3, the simplest way to do this is to use new with the without_protection refinement, and then save:
Post.new({:id => 10, :title => 'Test'}, :without_protection => true).save
For seed data, it may make sense to bypass validation which you can do like this:
Post.new({:id => 10, :title => 'Test'}, :without_protection => true).save(validate: false)
We've actually added a helper method to ActiveRecord::Base that is declared immediately prior to executing seed files:
class ActiveRecord::Base
def self.seed_create(attributes)
new(attributes, without_protection: true).save(validate: false)
end
end
And now:
Post.seed_create(:id => 10, :title => 'Test')
For Rails 4, you should be using StrongParams instead of protected attributes. If this is the case, you'll simply be able to assign and save without passing any flags to new:
Post.new(id: 10, title: 'Test').save # optionally pass `{validate: false}`
In Rails 4.2.1 with Postgresql 9.5.3, Post.create(:id => 10, :title => 'Test') works as long as there isn't a row with id = 10 already.
you can insert id by sql:
arr = record_line.strip.split(",")
sql = "insert into records(id, created_at, updated_at, count, type_id, cycle, date) values(#{arr[0]},#{arr[1]},#{arr[2]},#{arr[3]},#{arr[4]},#{arr[5]},#{arr[6]})"
ActiveRecord::Base.connection.execute sql

Resources