i want to do
current_user.allow_????? = true
where ????? could be whatever I wanted it to be
I've seen it done before.. just don't remember where, or what the thing is called.
foo = "bar"
current_user.send("allow_#{foo}=", true)
EDIT:
what you're asking for in the comment is another thing. If you want to grab a constant, you should use for instance
role = "admin"
User.const_get(role)
That's a "magic method" and you implement the method_missing on your current_user object. Example from Design Patterns
#example method passed into computer builder class
builder.add_dvd_and_harddisk
#or
builder.add_turbo_and_dvd_dvd_and_harddisk
def method_missing(name, *args)
words = name.to_s.split("_")
return super(name, *args) unless words.shift == 'add'
words.each do |word|
#next is same as continue in for loop in C#
next if word == 'and'
#each of the following method calls are a part of the builder class
add_cd if word == 'cd'
add_dvd if word == 'dvd'
add_hard_disk(100000) if word == 'harddisk'
turbo if word == 'turbo'
end
end
Related
i.e. can I define my own '==' method in a class and then make the set intersection operator ('&') use it? Alternatively, is there a way to override the '&' operator itself?
Can we do something like this?
def &(another_object)
#Code for intersection
end
First of all, & is not an operator. It’s a syntactic sugar to call the method & on LHO, passing RHO as the only argument.
Secondary, I doubt whether copy-pasting your attempt to pry/irb and check whether it works is harder/longer than to post a question here.
class MyObject
def ==(other)
other.is_a?(MyObject) && self.&(other).empty?
end
def &(other)
[]
end
end
mo1, mo2 = 2.times.map { MyObject.new }
mo1 == mo2 #⇒ true
mo1 == 42 #⇒ false
can I define my own '==' method in a class
Yes, you can:
class Foo
def ==(other)
# bla
end
end
and then make the set intersection operator ('&') use it?
Yes, you can:
require 'set'
module MySetEqualityExtension
def &(other)
reduce([]) {|acc, el| if acc.any? {|a| a == el } then acc else acc << el end }
end
end
module MySetEquality
refine Set do
prepend MySetEqualityExtension
end
end
Alternatively, is there a way to override the '&' operator itself?
Can we do something like this?
def &(another_object)
#Code for intersection
end
Yes. (As a side-note: it would have taken you less time and effort to just try it instead of asking.)
class Foo
def &(other)
# bla
end
end
You can do all of what you ask, but the correct way would be to simply implement eql? and hash properly, which is what Set#& uses.
I have approx 11 functions that look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_acceptance?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
def pending_start(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
pending_start?; collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
The iteration is always the same, but next unless conditions are different. In case you wonder: it's next unless and ; in it because RuboCop was complaining about it. Is there a solution to implement it better? I hate this spaghetti code. Something like passing the condition into "iterate_it" function or so...
edit: Cannot just pass another parameter because the conditions are double sometimes:
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
edit2: One question yet: how could I slice a symbol, to get a user role from a status? Something like:
:deliverer_started => :deliverer or 'deliverer'?
You can pass another parameter when you use that parameter to decide what condition to check. Just store all possible conditions as lambdas in a hash:
FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS = {
pending_acceptance: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
pending_start: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance? },
picked_up: lambda { |fulfillment| fulfillment.handed_over_late? && fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover? }
}
def process_fulfillments(type, order_fulfillments)
condition = FULFILLMENT_ACTIONS.fetch(type)
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless condition.call(order_fulfillment)
collect_fulfillments(order_fulfillment.status, order_fulfillment)
end
end
To be called like:
process_fulfillments(:pending_acceptance, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:pending_start, order_fulfillments)
process_fulfillments(:picked_up, order_fulfillments)
you can make array of strings
arr = ['acceptance','start', ...]
in next step:
arr.each do |method|
define_method ( 'pending_#{method}'.to_sym ) do |order_fulfillments|
order_fulfillments.each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.
send('pending_#{method}?'); collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
end
for more information about define_method
While next is handy it comes late(r) in the code and is thus a bit more difficult to grasp. I would first select on the list, then do the action. (Note that this is only possible if your 'check' does not have side effects like in order_fullfillment.send_email_and_return_false_if_fails).
So if tests can be complex I would start the refactoring by expressing the selection criteria and then pulling out the processing of these items (wich also matches more the method names you have given), somewhere in the middle it might look like this:
def pending_acceptance(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |o|
o.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_acceptance?
end
end
def picked_up(order_fulfillments)
order_fulfillments.select do |order_fulfillment|
order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.
fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
end
end
def calling_code
# order_fulfillments = OrderFulFillments.get_from_somewhere
# Now, filter
collect_fulfillments(pending_start order_fulfillments)
collect_fulfillments(picked_up order_fulfillments)
end
def collect_fullfillments order_fulfillments
order_fulfillments.each {|of| collect_fullfillment(of) }
end
You'll still have 11 (+1) methods, but imho you express more what you are up to - and your colleagues will grok what happens fast, too. Given your example and question I think you should aim for a simple, expressive solution. If you are more "hardcore", use the more functional lambda approach given in the other solutions. Also, note that these approaches could be combined (by passing an iterator).
You could use something like method_missing.
At the bottom of your class, put something like this:
def order_fulfillment_check(method, order_fulfillment)
case method
when "picked_up" then return order_fulfillment.handed_over_late? && order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.pending_handover?
...
... [more case statements] ...
...
else return order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.send(method + "?")
end
end
def method_missing(method_name, args*, &block)
args[0].each do |order_fulfillment|
next unless order_fulfillment_check(method_name, order_fulfillment);
collect_fulfillments(
order_fulfillment.status,
order_fulfillment
)
end
end
Depending on your requirements, you could check if the method_name starts with "pending_".
Please note, this code is untested, but it should be somewhere along the line.
Also, as a sidenote, order_fulfillment.fulfillment_time_calculator.some_random_method is actually a violation of the law of demeter. You might want to adress this.
I'm using Rails 4 and have an Article model that has answer, side_effects, and benefits as attributes.
I am trying to create a before_save method that automatically looks at the side effects and benefits and creates links corresponding to another article on the site.
Instead of writing two virtually identical methods, one for side effects and one for benefits, I would like to use the same method and check to assure the attribute does not equal answer.
So far I have something like this:
before_save :link_to_article
private
def link_to_article
self.attributes.each do |key, value|
unless key == "answer"
linked_attrs = []
self.key.split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.key = linked_attrs.join('; ')
end
end
end
but chaining on the key like that gives me an undefined method 'key'.
How can I go about interpolating in the attribute?
in this bit: self.key you are asking for it to literally call a method called key, but what you want, is to call the method-name that is stored in the variable key.
you can use: self.send(key) instead, but it can be a little dangerous.
If somebody hacks up a new form on their browser to send you the attribute called delete! you don't want it accidentally called using send, so it might be better to use read_attribute and write_attribute.
Example below:
def link_to_article
self.attributes.each do |key, value|
unless key == "answer"
linked_attrs = []
self.read_attribute(key).split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.write_attribute(key, linked_attrs.join('; '))
end
end
end
I'd also recommend using strong attributes in the controller to make sure you're only permitting the allowed set of attributes.
OLD (before I knew this was to be used on all attributes)
That said... why do you go through every single attribute and only do something if the attribute is called answer? why not just not bother with going through the attributes and look directly at answer?
eg:
def link_to_article
linked_attrs = []
self.answer.split(';').each do |i|
a = Article.where('lower(specific) = ?', i.downcase.strip).first
if a && a.approved?
linked_attrs.push("<a href='/questions/#{a.slug}' target=_blank>#{i.strip}</a>")
else
linked_attrs.push(i.strip)
end
end
self.answer = linked_attrs.join('; ')
end
I have a class that I use to contain select menu options for property types. It works fine. However, I need to be able to verify the selection and perform specific logic based on the selected option. This needs to happen in my Ruby code and in JavaScript.
Here is the class in question:
class PropertyTypes
def self.[](id)
##types[id]
end
def self.options_for_select
##for_select
end
private
##types = {
1 => "Residential",
2 => "Commercial",
3 => "Land",
4 => "Multi-Family",
5 => "Retail",
6 => "Shopping Center",
7 => "Industrial",
8 => "Self Storage",
9 => "Office",
10 => "Hospitality"
}
##for_select = ##types.each_pair.map{|id, display_name| [display_name, id]}
end
What is the best way to verify the selection? I need to perform specific logic and display user interface elements based on each type of property type.
Since I am storing the id, I would be verifying that the id is a particular property type. Something like:
PropertyTypes.isResidential?(id)
Then this method would look like this:
def self.isResidential?(id)
##types[id] == "Residential"
end
But now I am duplicating the string "Residential".
For JavaScript, I assume I would make an ajax call back to the model to keep the verification code DRY, but this seems like over kill.
Do I need to manually create a verification method for each property type or can I use define_method?
This seems so basic yet I am confused and burned out on this problem.
Thanks
===
Here's my solution:
class << self
##types.values.each do |v|
# need to remove any spaces or hashes from the found property type
v = v.downcase().gsub(/\W+/, '')
define_method "is_#{v}?", do |i|
type_name = ##types[i]
return false if type_name == nil #in case a bogus index is passed in
type_name = type_name.downcase().gsub(/\W+/, '')
type_name == v
end
end
end
It sounds like you can benefit from some Ruby meta-programming. Try googling "ruby method_missing". You can probably do something quick & dirty along the lines of:
class PropertyTypes
def method_missing(meth, *args, &block)
if meth.to_s =~ /^is_(.+)\?$/
##types[args.first] == $1
else
super
end
end
end
On the ruby side you could also use something like this to define dynamically these methods:
class << self
##types.values.each do |v|
define_method "is_#{v}?", do |i|
##types[i] == v
end
end
end
I've created a custom validator in Rails 3.0 which validates whether a combination of columns is unique within a table. The entire code of the validation is:
class UniqueInProjectValidator < ActiveModel::EachValidator
def validate_each(object, attribute, value)
unless object.class.where("project_id = ? AND #{attribute} = ?", object.project_id, value).empty?
if object.new_record?
object.errors[attribute] << (options[:message] || "must be unique in each project")
else
orig_rec = object.class.find(object.id)
if value != orig_rec.method(attribute).call || object.project_id != orig_rec.project_id
object.errors[attribute] << (options[:message] || "must be unique in each project")
end
end
end
end
Note that it is not easy to recognize what the if statements do, so I was hoping to be able to replace the unless conditional with a def attribute_and_project_exist? method and the second if statement with a def attribute_or_project_changed? method. However when creating those methods, the arguments from validates_each do not pass because of encapsulation.
Now the question: Is there a way to somehow cleanly allow those variables to be accessed by my two newly created methods as one can do with column names in a model, or am I stuck with the options of either passing each argument again or leaving the hard to read conditional statements?
Thanks in advance!
I suppose you could clean it up a bit with one variable, one lambda, and one "return as soon as possible":
def validate_each(object, attribute, value)
# If there is no duplication then bail out right away as
# there is nothing to check. This reduces your nesting by
# one level. Using a variable here helps to make your
# intention clear.
attribute_and_project_exists = object.class.where("project_id = ? AND #{attribute} = ?", object.project_id, value).empty?
return unless attribute_and_project_exists
# This lambda wraps up your second chunk of ugly if-ness and saves
# you from computing the result unless you have to.
attribute_or_project_changed = lambda do
orig_rec = object.class.find(object.id)
value != orig_rec.method(attribute).call || object.project_id != orig_rec.project_id
end
# Note that || short-circuits so the lambda will only be
# called if you have an existing record.
if object.new_record? || attribute_or_project_changed.call
object.errors[attribute] << (options[:message] || "must be unique in each project")
end
end
I don't know how much better that is than your original but the logic and control flow is a lot clearer to me due to the nicer chunking.