I have the following one to many associations. Document has many Sections and Section has many Items.
class Document < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :document_sections, :dependent => :destroy, :autosave => true
has_many :document_items, :through => :document_sections
end
class DocumentSection < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :document
has_many :document_items, :dependent => :destroy, :autosave => true
end
class DocumentItem < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :document_section
end
Here is the params hash:
-
Parameters: {"commit"=>"Submit Document", "authenticity_token"=>"4nx2B0pJkvavDmkEQ305ABHy+h5R4bZTrmHUv1setnc=", "id"=>"10184", "document"=>{"section"=>{"10254"=>{"seqnum"=>"3", "item"=>{"10259"=>{"comments"=>"tada"}}}}, "comment"=>"blah"}}
I have the following update method...
# PUT /documents/1
# PUT /documents/1.xml
def update
#document = Document.find(params[:id])
# This is header comment
#document.comment = params[:document][:comment]
params[:document][:section].each do |k,v|
document_section = #document.document_sections.find_by_id(k)
if document_section
v[:item].each do |key, value|
document_item = document_section.feedback_items.find_by_id(key)
if document_item
# This is item comments
document_item.comments = value[:comments]
end
end
end
end
#document.save
end
When I save the document it only updates the document header comments. It does not save the document_item comments. Shouldn't the autosave option also update the associations.
In the log only the following DML is registered:
UPDATE documents SET updated_at = TO_DATE('2010-03-09 08:35:59','YYYY-MM-DD HH24:MI:SS'), comment = 'blah' WHERE id = 10184
How do I save the associations by saving the document.
I think I see what the problem is. I'm pretty sure that you cannot do the following:
# Triggers a database call
document_section = #document.document_sections.find_by_id(k)
And expect ActiveRecord to keep the association for autosaves. Instead, you should save the loaded records individually. Which of course would not be atomic.
I believe for autosave to work like you are thinking, you want to do something like this:
# untested...
#document.document_sections.collect { |s| s.id == k }.foo = "bar"
Notice that here I'm actually modifying a fake param foo in the array, instead of calling find_by_id, which will re-query the database and return a new object.
A third option you have is that you could of course, do what you had originally planned, but handle all the transactions yourself, or use nested transactions, etc, to get the atmoic saves. This would be necessary if your data was too large for array manipulation to work since autosave by it's natures triggers a load of all associated data into memory.
It all depends on your application.
Some clarifications on the underlying problem:
If you run the find_by_id method, you are asking ActiveRecord to return to you a new set of objects that match that query. The fact that you executed that method from an instance (document_sections) is really just another way of saying:
DocumentSection.find_by_id(k)
Calling it from an object instance I think is just some syntactic niceness that rails is adding on the top of things, but in my mind it doesn't make a lot of sense; I think it could be handy in some application, I'm not sure.
On the other side, collect is a Ruby Array method that offers a way to "slice" an array using a block. Basically a fancy foreach loop. :) By interacting with the document_sections array directly, you are changing the same objects already loaded into the containing object (#document), which will then be committed when you save with the special autosave flag set.
HTH! Glad you are back and running. :)
Related
Context:
Each Order has many Items & Logistics. Each Item & Logistic (as well as the Order itself) have many Revenues.
I am creating Order + Items & Logistics at once using an accepts_nested_attributes_for on Order. However, Revenues gets created using an after_create callback on each of the models Order, Item, and Logistics. Why? Because given the difference in interpretation in these models, the code reads cleaner this way. (But if this way of doing it is what's causing this question to be asked, I will obviously reconsider!)
One key attribute that I need to store in Revenues is pp_charge_id. But pp_charge_id is not something that either Order, Items, or Logistics needs to worry about. I've attached an attr_accessor :pp_charge_id to Order, so that one works fine, however, once I'm in the child Items or Logistics models, I no longer have access to pp_charge_id which again I need to save an associated Revenue. How should I do this?
Controller Code:
#order = Order.new(params) #params includes Order params, and nested params for child Item & Logistics
#order.pp_charge_id = "cash"
#order.save #I need this to not only save the Order, the children Item & Logistics, but then to also create the associated Revenue for each of the aforementioned 3 models
ORDER Model Code:
has_many :items
has_many :revenues
attr_accessor :pp_charge_id
after_create :create_revenue
def create_revenue
self.revenues.create(pp_charge_id: self.pp_charge_id)
end
#This WORKS as expected because of the attr_accessor
ITEM/ LOGISTIC model code:
has_many :revenues
belongs_to :order
after_create :create_revenue
def create_revenue
self.revenues.create(pp_charge_id: self.order.pp_charge_id)
end
#This DOES NOT work because self.order.pp_charge_id is nil
ORDER model code:
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :item
belongs_to :logistic
Again I understand the attr_accessor is not designed to persist across a request or even if the Order itself is reloaded. But it also doesn't make sense to save it redundantly in a table that has no use for it. If the only way to do this is to put the pp_charge_id into the params for the order and save everything all at once (including Revenues), then let me know because I know how to do that. (Again, would just rather avoid that because of how it's interpreted: params are coming from User, Revenue data is something I'm providing)
I think if you want the order's pp_charge_id to apply to all its items and logistics, I'd put all that into the order's after_create callback:
# order.rb
def create_revenue
revenues.create(pp_charge_id: pp_charge_id)
items.each {|i| i.revenues.create(pp_charge_id: pp_charge_id)}
logistics.each {|l| l.revenues.create(pp_charge_id: pp_charge_id)}
end
EDIT: Alternately, you could add inverse_of to your belongs_to declarations, and then I believe Item#create_revenue would see the same Order instance that you set in the controller. So if you also added an attr_accessor to the Item class, you could write its create_revenue like this:
# item.rb
def create_revenue
revenues.create(pp_charge_id: pp_charge_id || order.pp_charge_id)
end
This should cover the new requirement you've mentioned in your comment.
instead of using after_create and accessors you should consider having a proper method that does exactly what you need, ie:
Order.create_with_charge(:cash, params)
i find it disturbing to persist redundant information in the database just because the code reads cleaner that way!
I have a model:
class A < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :B
end
And I want to reset or update A's B association, but only save it later:
a = A.find(...)
# a.bs == [B<...>, B<...>]
a.bs = []
#or
a.bs = [B.new, B.new]
# do some validation stuff on `a` and `a.bs`
So there might be some case where I will call a.save later or maybe not. In the case I don't call a.save I would like that a.bs stay to its original value, but as soon as I call a.bs = [], the old associations is destroyed and now A.find(...).bs == []. Is there any simple way to set a record association without persisting it in the database right away? I looked at Rails source and didn't find anything that could help me there.
Thanks!
Edit:
I should add that this is for an existing application and there are some architecture constraint that doesn't allow us to use the the regular ActiveRecord updating and validation tools. The way it works we have a set of Updater class that take params and assign the checkout object the value from params. There are then a set of Validater class that validate the checkout object for each given params. Fianlly, if everything is good, we save the model.
In this case, I'm looking to update the association in an Updater, validate them in the Validator and finally, persist it if everything check out.
In summary, this would look like:
def update
apply_updaters(object, params)
# do some stuff with the updated object
if(validate(object))
object.save(validate: false)
end
Since there are a lot of stuff going on between appy_updaters and object.save, Transaction are not really an option. This is why I'm really looking to update the association without persisting right away, just like we would do with any other attribute.
So far, the closest solution I've got to is rewriting the association cache (target). This look something like:
# In the updater
A.bs.target.clear
params[:bs].each{|b| A.bs.build(b)}
# A.bs now contains the parameters object without doing any update in the database
When come the time to save, we need to persist cache:
new_object = A.bs.target
A.bs(true).replace(new_object)
This work, but this feel kind of hack-ish and can easily break or have some undesired side-effect. An alternative I'm thinking about is to add a method A#new_bs= that cache the assigned object and A#bs that return the cached object if available.
Good question.
I can advice to use attributes assignment instead of collection manipulation. All validations will be performed as regular - after save or another 'persistent' method. You can write your own method (in model or in separated validator) which will validate collection.
You can delete and add elements to collection through attributes - deletion is performed by additional attribute _destroy which may be 'true' or 'false' (http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/NestedAttributes/ClassMethods.html), addition - through setting up parent model to accept attributes.
As example set up model A:
class A < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :b
accepts_nested_attributes_for :b, :allow_destroy => true
validates_associated :b # to validate each element
validate :b_is_correct # to validate whole collection
def b_is_correct
self.bs.each { |b| ... } # validate collection
end
end
In controller use plain attributes for model updating (e.g update!(a_aparams)). These methods will behave like flat attribute updating. And don't forget to permit attributes for nested collection.
class AController < ApplicationController
def update
#a = A.find(...)
#a.update(a_attributes) # triggers validation, if error occurs - no changes will be persisted and a.errors will be populated
end
def a_attributes
params.require(:a).permit([:attr_of_a, :b_attributes => [:attr_of_b, :_destroy]])
end
end
On form we used gem nested_form (https://github.com/ryanb/nested_form), I recommend it. But on server side this approach uses attribute _destroy as mentioned before.
I finally found out about the mark_for_destruction method. My final solution therefor look like:
a.bs.each(&:mark_for_destruction)
params[:bs].each{|b| a.bs.build(b)}
And then I can filter out the marked_for_destruction? entry in the following processing and validation.
Thanks #AlkH that made me look into how accepts_nested_attributes_for was working and handling delayed destruction of association.
I have some STI setup like this:
class Document < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :name, description
# Basic stuff omitted
end
class OriginalDocument < Document
has_many :linked_documents, foreign_key: :original_document_id, dependent: :destroy
end
class LinkedDocument < Document
belongs_to :original_document
# Delegation, because it has the same attributes, except the name
delegate :description, to: :original_document
end
Now I want to dup the LinkedDocument and store it as an OriginalDocument, with its own name and keep the attribute values on duplication. However, my approachs are failing because somewhere, the duplicate still wants to access its delegated methods in the after_* callbacks.
class LinkedDocument < Document
def unlink_from_parent
original = self.original_document
copy = self.becomes OriginalDocument
copy.original_document_id = nil
copy.description = original.description
copy.save
end
end
This throws a RuntimeError: LinkedDocument#description delegated to original_document.description, but original_document is nil.
Doing an additional copy.type = 'OriginalDocument' to enforce things won't work, since the save query involves the type; UPDATE documents SET [...] WHERE documents.type IN('OriginalDocument') [...]. This fails, because at the time of the transaction, the object still is of type LinkedDocument.
What would be a clean way to copy an object and let it become another one? I thought of calling update_column for type and every attribute I want to copy over, but before doing it that inelegant way, I wanted to ask here.
I am going to add my solution here, in case no one has a better one. Hopefully, it will help someone.
To let the object become another without having wrong queries because the where clause is checking for the wrong type, I manually updated the type column without invoking any callbacks before calling become.
# This is for rails3, where +update_column+ does not trigger
# validations or callbacks. For rails4, use
#
# self.update_columns {type: 'OriginalDocument'}
#
self.update_column :type, 'OriginalDocument'
document = self.becomes OriginalDocument
Now for the assignments, there were two problems: First, the attribute setters somehow may trigger an exception because of the delegations. Second, the attributes I wanted to mass-assign were not listed in e.g. attr_accessible intentionally because they were internal attributes. So I resorted to a loop with an ugly update_column statement producing way too much queries (since rails3 has no update_columns).
original.attributes.except('id', 'name', 'original_document_id').each do |k,v|
document.update_column k.to_sym, v
end
I have a couple of models that are composites of multiple objects. I basically manage them manually for saves and updates. However, when I select items out, I don't have access to the associated properties of said item. For example:
class ObjectConnection < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.get_three_by_location_id location_id
l=ObjectConnection.find_all_by_location_id(location_id).first(3)
r=[]
l.each_with_index do |value, key|
value[:engine_item]=Item.find(value.engine_id)
value[:chassis_item]=Item.find(value.chassis_id)
r << value
end
return r
end
end
and each item:
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assets, :as => :assetable, :dependent => :destroy
When I use the ObjectLocation.find_three_by_location_id, I don't have access to assets whereas if use Item.find(id) in most other situations, I do.
I tried using includes but that didn't seem to do it.
thx
Sounds like the simplest solution would be to add methods to your ObjectConnection model for easy access like so:
class ObjectConnection < ActiveRecord::Base
def engine
Engine.find(engine_id)
end
def chassis
Chassis.find(chassis_id)
end
# rest of class omitted...
I'm not exactly sure what you're asking... If this doesn't answer what you're asking, then can you try to be a little bit more clear with what exactly you are trying to accomplish? Are the Chassis and Engine mdoels supposed to be polymorphic associations with your Item model?
Also, the code you're using above won't work due to the fact that you are trying to dynamically set properties on a model. It's not your calls to Item.find that are failing, it's your calls to value[:engine_item]= and value[:chassis_item] that are failing. You would need to modify it to be something like this if you wanted to keep that flow:
def self.get_three_by_location_id location_id
l=ObjectConnection.find_all_by_location_id(location_id).first(3)
r=[]
l.each_with_index do |obj_conn, key|
# at this point, obj_conn is an ActiveRecord object class, you can't dynamically set attributes on it at this point
value = obj_conn.attributes # returns the attributes of the ObjectConnection as a hash where you can then add additional key/value pairs like on the next 2 lines
value[:engine_item]=Item.find(value.engine_id)
value[:chassis_item]=Item.find(value.chassis_id)
r << value
end
r
end
But I still think that this whole method seems unnecessary due to the fact that if you setup proper associations on your ObjectConnection model to begin with, then you don't need to go and try to handle the associations manually like you're attempting to do here.
I'm have this two classes,
class User
include DataMapper::Resource
property :id, Serial
property :name, String
has n :posts, :through => Resource
end
class Post
include DataMapper::Resource
property :id, Serial
property :title, String
property :body, Text
has n :users, :through => Resource
end
So once I have a new post like:
Post.new(:title => "Hello World", :body = "Hi there").save
I'm having serious problems to add and remove from the association, like:
User.first.posts << Post.first #why do I have to save this as oppose from AR?
(User.first.posts << Post.first).save #this just works if saving the insertion later
And how should I remove a post from that association?
I'm using the following but definitely its not working:
User.first.posts.delete(Post.first) #returns the Post.first, but nothing happens
User.first.posts.delete(Post.first).save #returns true, but nothing happens
User.first.posts.delete(Post.first).destroy #destroy the Post.first, not the association
So I really don't know how to delete this from the BoltUser Array.
The delete() method, and other methods from Array only work on the in-memory copy of the Collections. They don't actually modify anything until you persist the objects.
Also, all CRUD actions performed on a collection primarily affect the target. A few, like create() or destroy(), will add/remove the intermediary resources in many to many collections, but it's only a side effect of creating or removing the target.
In your case, if you wanted to remove just the first Post, you could do this:
User.first.posts.first(1).destroy
The User.first.posts.first(1) part returns a collection scoped to only the first post. Calling destroy on the collection removes everything in the collection (which is just the first record) and includes the intermediaries.
I managed to do it by doing:
#to add
user_posts = User.first.posts
user_posts << Bolt.first
user_posts.save
#to remove
user_posts.delete(Bolt.first)
user_posts.save
I think the only way to do it is by working with the instance actions, do your changes on that instance and after you finished, just save it.
It's kind of different from AR, but it should be fine though.