I have a model that has ratings in it for an post.
I want to display a list of the top 5 ratings for a given post, but I am completely lost on where to start. I figure the find method might have something useful, but I'm unsure. I've even considered looping through each record getting its size, adding it to a hash, sorting the hash, etc., but that seems too complicated.
Does anyone know how I might accomplish something like this?
Thank you
Edit: I found this to get all the posts that have the rating of agree:
Post.find(:all, :include => :post_ratings, :condtions => ['post_ratings.agree = ?', true])
The only problem is I can't figure out how to get the top five ratings from this query.
Might be worth giving a little more of an example of the code you're working with but I'll answer with a few assumptions.
If you have:
class Post
has_many :post_ratings
end
class PostRating
belongs_to :post
# Has a 'rating' attribute
end
You can find the top five post ratings with:
p = Post.find(:first) # For example
p.post_ratings.find(:all, :limit => 5, :order => 'rating desc')
To get the top five post ratings overall you can do:
PostRating.find(:all, :limit => 5, :order => 'rating desc')
UPDATE:
Following your edit it seems you have an 'agree' and a 'disagree' column. Not sure how that works in combination so I'll stick with the 'agree' column. What you'll need to do is count the ratings with agree flagged. Something like:
count_hsh PostRating.count(:group => 'post_id',
:order => 'count(*) desc',
:conditions => { :agree => true },
:limit => 5)
This will return you a hash mapping the post id to the count of agree ratings. You can then use that post_id to locate the posts themselves. The ratings are provided by the counts so the individual ratings are (I think) of no use though you could access them by calling post.post_ratings.
So, to get the top five posts:
#top_five_posts = []
count_hsh.each_pair do |post_id, ratings|
p = Post.find(post_id)
p[:rating_count] = ratings
#top_five_posts << p
end
This is probably more verbose than it could be but is hopefully illustrative. The p[:rating_count] is a virtual attribute which isn't in the database but will allow you to access the .rating_count method on the posts in your view if you wish to.
Assuming the same Post and PostRating from Shadwell's answer:
class Post
has_many :post_ratings
end
class PostRating
belongs_to :post
# Has a 'rating' attribute
end
To get the top five ratings for all Posts:
post_ratings.find(:all, :limit => 5, :order => 'rating desc')
To get the top five ratings for a specific Post you can:
p = Post.find(:first)
post_ratings.find_all_by_post_id(p.id, :limit => 5, :order => 'rating desc')
To find all posts sorted by average rating, you can use ActiveRecord::Calculations.
PostRating.average(:rating, :group => :post_id, :include => :post, :order => 'average desc')
Related
I have two models, post and comment. Posts has many comments and comments belongs to posts.
What I'm trying to do, is to have a list of posts that is ordered by creation date, unless it has comments. Then it needs to take the creation date of the latest comment.
Now I know that I can include associations like this:
Post.find(:all, :include => [:comments], :order => "comments.created_at DESC, posts.created_at DESC")
But this will order all posts with comments first and then the posts without comments. I don't want either ones ordered separately, but combined.
The solution also needs to be compatible with a paginate gem like will_paginate.
Edit
I have it now working with the following code:
posts_controller.rb
#posts = Post.order('updated_at DESC').page(params[:page]).per_page(10)
comments_controller.rb
#post = Post.find(params[:post_id])
#post.update_attributes!(:updated_at => Time.now)
I'd recommend:
Add a last_commented_at date field to your Post model. Whenever someone comments on the post update that field. It de-normalizes your db structure a bit, but your query will be faster and more strait-forward.
Postgres
Post.paginate(:include => [:comments],
:order => "COALESCE(comments.created_at, posts.created_at)",
:page => 1, :per_page => 10)
MySQL
Post.paginate(:include => [:comments],
:order => "IFNULL(comments.created_at, posts.created_at)",
:page => 1, :per_page => 10)
I am working on a Rails 2.3.9 app and my question involves both a self referencial relationship and a named_scope. This application allows users to log and share workouts. A workout can be public or private and that is designated by #workout.public == 1.
I allow users to 'follow' people. So on a current_user's dashboard I display all public workouts from users that current_user follows with the following code:
/dashboard/index.html.erb
<% current_user.friends_workouts.each do |workout| %>
<%= link_to (workout.title), workout %> <br/>
by <%= link_to (workout.user.username), workout.user %> - <%= time_ago_in_words(workout.created_at)%> ago</p>
<% end %>
user.rb
def friends_workouts
#friends_workouts ||= Workout.current.public_workouts.find_all_by_user_id(self.friends.map(&:id), :order => "created_at DESC", :limit => 3)
end
workout.rb
named_scope :public_workouts, :conditions => {:public => 1 }, :order => "created_at DESC"
I now want to add a condition to this scope as I am adding another level of sharing. Users can associate to a "box" (a gym really) through a "membership" model. So if the current_user belongs_to the same "box" as a user they follow, they should not only see the workouts marked public but also workouts where #workout.box_only == 1.
How can I affect the above to include all public workouts from followed users AND workouts from followed users where #workout.box_only == 1 and #workout.user.membership.box_id == current_user.membership.box_id. I know that syntax is incorrect but you get my point (hopefully).
UPDATE:
It also needs to be considered that :public_workouts is being called from pages that don't require a logged_in? user so in that case if the scope is trying to reference current_user it will throw an error.
UPDATE 2:
:user has_many :memberships
I believe something like the following should do it for you:
named_scope :public_workouts,
:joins => ", user, membership"
:conditions =>
"workouts.public = 1 or
membership.box_id = #{current_user.membership.box_id}",
:group => "workouts.id",
:order => "workouts.created_at DESC"
You would have to play around with this for a bit. The hard part every time I try something like this is to get the OR conditions correct. You want to get all public and those where the joined membership.box_id matches regardless of public being 1.
Edit: Admittedly this is perhaps not the most ruby way of building a query and I haven't tested it properly but something like below could also be made to work.
def self.public_workouts
query = Workout.joins(:user => { :membership })
if current_user
query.where('memberships.box_id = ? or workouts.public = 1', current_user.membership.box_id) unless current_user.membership.box_id.nil?
else
query.where('workouts.public = 1')
end
query.group('workouts.id')
query.order("workouts.created_at DESC")
return query
end
Edit2
Another alternative could be to create two separate scopes and create a class method that combines the two scopes. This class method would then be used in the view.
named_scope :box_workouts,
:joins => ", user, membership"
:conditions => "memberships.box_id = #{current_user.membership.box_id}"
:group => "workouts.id",
:order => "workouts.created_at DESC",
:select "workouts"
named_scope :public_workouts,
:conditions => :public => 1
:order => "workouts.created_at DESC"
def self.public_box_workouts
return box_workouts.merge(public_workouts).limit(3) if current_user
return public_workouts.limit(3)
end
Edit3 Not so hard, I believe something like below will work.
def self.box_and_public_workouts(user)
return public_workouts if user.nil? or user.memberships.blank?
return public_workouts + box_workouts(user.memberships.map(&:box_id))
end
named_scope :box_workouts, lambda { |box_ids| { :conditions => ['box_id IN (?)', box_ids], :order => 'created_at DESC' } }
Apologies for taking so long. I was missing confused with how the "old" way of querying the database. I went right for Rails3 :)
Anyway, I didn't want to commit anything so I tried to fork it to send a pull request but github is being rude to me tonight. Might just copy from here then.
Not the best with Rails so this might be very simple.
I have a database with tables Groups and Orders - groups has_many orders, orders belongs_to groups. Orders have a string field called status, which can be in progress, canceled, completed. An order is considered "not in progress" when it is either canceled or completed.
I would like to be able to find all groups with no orders in progress and at least one order completed. So far I have the none in progress:
groups = Group.find(:all, :include => :orders, :conditions => ["orders.status != :in_progress", { :in_progress => Constant::IN_PROGRESS }])
Is there a way to find groups with at least one order completed (without simply iterating over this array and picking them out)?
Edit: Rails version 2.1.0 Sorry for the oversight!
If you put this into one find condition it's going to be really complicated and you will probably want to add more filters later so might want to break it into to finds.
#groups = []
groups = Group.find(:all, :joins => :orders, :conditions =>])
no_orders_in_progress = Group.find(:all, :jois => 'order', :conditions => ['status!=', 'in progress'], :limit => 5)
orders_completed = Group.find(:all, :joins => 'order', :conditions => ['status=?', 'completed'], :limit => 1)
#groups << orders_completed + no_orders_in_progress
Make sure to limit it however many you want.
For Example, I want to know the User have many posts. So, I can get back post using this :
#user.posts
but I don't want to get all the posts back. I would like to limite the result, for example, top ten created, or may be sorted by some column. How can I do so? Thank you.
You can always make a generic scope to handle the limit, such as putting this in an initializer:
class ActiveRecord::Base
named_scope :limit, lambda { |*limit| {
:limit => limit[0] || 10,
:offset => limit[1]
}}
end
This makes limiting queries easy:
# Default is limited to 10
#user.posts.limit
# Pass in a specific limit
#user.posts.limit(25)
# Pass in a specific limit and offset
#user.posts.limit(25, 25)
For something more robust, you might want to investigate will_paginate.
Try this:
#user.posts(:limit => 10, :order => "created_at DESC")
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html
You should take a look at the options available for the has_many association.
You could try something like this:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :posts
has_many :top_ten_posts, { :class_name => "Post", :order => :some_rating_column, :limit => 10 }
end
Say I have a model Taggable has_many tags, how may I find all taggables by their associated tag's taggable_id field?
Taggable.find(:all, :joins => :tags, :conditions => {:tags => {:taggable_id => [1,2,3]}})
results in this:
SELECT `taggables`.* FROM `taggables` INNER JOIN `tags` ON tags.taggable_id = taggables.id WHERE (`tag`.`taggable_id` IN (1,2,3))
The syntax is incredible but does not fit my needs in that the resulting sql returns any taggable that has any, some or all of the tags.
How can I find taggables with related tags of field taggable_id valued 1, 2 and 3?
Thanks for any advice. :)
UPDATE:
I have found a solution which I'll post for others, should they end up here. Also though for the attention of others whose suggestions for improvement I'd happily receive. :)
Taggable.find(:all, :joins => :tags, :select => "taggables.*, tags.count tag_count", :conditions => {:tags => {:taggable_id => array_of_tag_ids}}, :group => "taggables.id having tag_count = #{array_of_tag_ids.count}"))
Your question is a bit confusing ('tags' seemed to be used quite a bit :)), but I think you want the same thing I needed here:
Taggable.find([1,2,3], :include => :tags).tags.map { |t| t.taggables }
or (if you want the results to be unique, which you probably do):
Taggable.find([1,2,3], :include => :tags).tags.map { |t| t.taggables }.flatten.uniq
This gets at all the taggables that have the same tags as the taggables that have ids 1,2, and 3. Is that what you wanted?