Why do migrations need the table block param? - ruby-on-rails

Why does the ruby on rails migration syntax look like this:
create_table :my_table do |t|
t.integer :col
t.integer :col2
t.integer :col3
end
And not:
create_table :my_table do
integer :col
integer :col2
integer :col3
end
Personally I find the second snippet much more readable, are there any reasons why the implementation uses the first?

The fundamental implementation of the two approaches is different.
In the first (and actual) case, create_table calls yield with a TableDefinition object. So t in your example block points to that TableDefinition. The alternative method is to use instance_eval. This would look something like:
def create_table(name, &block)
table_definition = TableDefinition.new
# Other setup
table_definition.instance_eval(&block)
# More work
end
Which way you do it is partially a matter of preference. However, some people are not fans of eval so they like to avoid this. Also, using the yield method makes it clearer what object you're working with.

My understanding is that ruby is lexically scoped, meaning that "integer" has to refer to something defined at the point it occurs in the code. You'd need dynamic scoping to accomplish what you're asking for.
It may be that I'm wrong and at least one of procs, blocks and lambdas is dynamically scoped, but then you still have your answer -- obscure details of how scope behaves is not a good thing to expect a programmer to know.

Basically the interface designer should have chosen to do so due to this little trick regarding scopes and how eval and instance_eval work, check this example:
Having 2 classes Foo and Boo with the following definitions:
class Foo
def speak(phrase)
puts phrase
end
def self.generate(&block)
f = Foo.new
f.instance_eval(&block)
end
end
class Boo
attr_reader :name
def initialize(name) ; #name = name ; end
def express
Foo.generate { speak name}
end
end
Generally this should work fine for most cases, but some situations like the following statement will issue an error:
Boo.new("someone").express #`express': undefined local variable or method `name' for #<Foo:0xb7f582fc> (NameError)
We don't have access here to the instance methods of Boo inside Foo instances that's because we are using instance_eval, so the method name which is defined for Boo instances is not in the scope for Foo instances.
To overcome such problems it’s better to redefine generate as follows:
class Foo
def speak(phrase)
puts phrase
end
def self.generate(&block)
f = Foo.new
block.arity < 1 ? f.instance_eval(&block) : block.call(f)
end
end
This is a flexible interface where you evaluate the code block depending on the passed block params. Now we have to pass the current foo object as a param when we need to call instance methods on it, let's redefine Boo, check express and talk:
class Boo
attr_reader :name
def initialize(name) ; #name = name ; end
def express
Foo.generate { |f| f.speak name}
end
def talk(anything)
Foo.generate { speak anything}
end
end
Boo.new("someone").express #=> someone
Boo.new("someone").talk("whatever") #=> whatever

Related

Pass a symbol to a method and call the corresponding method

In a Rails controller you can pass a symbol to the layout method that corresponds to a method in you controller that will return the layout name like this:
layout :my_method
def my_method
'layout_1'
end
I want to have a similar functionality to likewise pass a symbol to my classes method and that class should call the corresponding function and use its return value, like this
myClass.foo :my_method
def my_method
'layout_1'
end
I've read posts[1] that tell me I need to pass
myClass.foo(method(:my_method))
which I find ugly and inconvenient. How is rails here different allowing to pass just the symbol without any wrapper? Can this be achieved like Rails does it?
[1] How to implement a "callback" in Ruby?
If you want to only pass a :symbol into the method, then you have to make assumptions about which method named :symbol is the one you want called for you. Probably it's either defined in the class of the caller, or some outer scope. Using the binding_of_caller gem, we can snag that information easily and evaluate the code in that context.
This surely has security implications, but those issues are up to you! :)
require 'binding_of_caller'
class Test
def foo(sym)
binding.of_caller(1).eval("method(:#{sym})").call
end
end
class Other
def blork
t = Test.new
p t.foo(:bar)
p t.foo(:quxx)
end
def bar
'baz'
end
end
def quxx
'quxx'
end
o = Other.new
o.blork
> "baz"
> "quxx"
I still don't understand, what is author asking about. He's saying about "callbacks", but only wrote how he wants to pass parameter to some method. What that method(foo) should do - i have no idea.
So I tried to predict it's implementation. On class initialising it gets the name of method and create private method, that should be called somewhere under the hood. It possible not to create new method, but store method name in class variable and then call it somewhere.
module Foo
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
module ClassMethods
def foo(method_name)
define_method :_foo do
send method_name
end
end
end
end
class BaseClass
include Foo
end
class MyClass < BaseClass
foo :my_method
private
def my_method
"Hello world"
end
end
MyClass.new.send(:_foo)
#=> "Hello world"
And really, everything is much clearer when you're not just wondering how it works in rails, but viewing the source code: layout.rb

Ruby on Rails decorator for caching a result?

In Python, you can write a decorator for memoizing a function's response.
Is there something similar for Ruby on Rails? I have a model's method that makes a query, which I would like to cache.
I know I can do something inside the method, like:
def foo(param)
if self.cache[param].nil?
self.cache[param] = self.get_query_result(param)
else
self.cache[param]
end
end
However, given that I would do this often, I'd prefer a decorator syntax. It is clearer and better IMO.
Is there something like this for Ruby on Rails?
I usually do this using custom accessors, instance variables, and the ||= operator:
def foo
#foo ||= something_or_other
end
something_or_other could be a private method on the same class that returns the object that foo should be.
EDIT
Here's a slightly more complicated solution that lets you cache any method based on the arguments used to call them.
class MyClass
attr_reader :cache
def initialize
#cache = {}
end
class << self
def cacheable(symbol)
alias_method :"_#{symbol}_uncached", symbol
define_method(symbol) do |*args|
cache[[symbol, *args]] ||= (send :"_#{symbol}_uncached", *args)
end
end
end
end
How this works:
class MyClass
def foo(a, b)
a + b
end
cacheable :foo
end
First, the method is defined normally. Then the class method cacheable is called, which aliases the original method to a new name, then redefines it under the original name to be executed only if it's not already cached. It first checks the cache for anything using the same method and arguments, returns the value if present, and executes the original method if not.
http://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html:
There are only two hard things in Computer Science: cache invalidation and naming things.
-- Phil Karlton
Rails has a lot of built in caching(including query caching). You might not need to do anything:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/caching_with_rails.html
Here is a recent blog post about problems with roll your own caching:
http://cmme.org/tdumitrescu/blog/2014/01/careful-what-you-memoize/

Dynamically defining instance method within an instance method

I have a several classes, each of which define various statistics.
class MonthlyStat
attr_accessor :cost, :size_in_meters
end
class DailyStat
attr_accessor :cost, :weight
end
I want to create a decorator/presenter for a collection of these objects, that lets me easily access aggregate information about each collection, for example:
class YearDecorator
attr_accessor :objs
def self.[]= *objs
new objs
end
def initialize objs
self.objs = objs
define_helpers
end
def define_helpers
if o=objs.first # assume all objects are the same
o.instance_methods.each do |method_name|
# sums :cost, :size_in_meters, :weight etc
define_method "yearly_#{method_name}_sum" do
objs.inject(0){|o,sum| sum += o.send(method_name)}
end
end
end
end
end
YearDecorator[mstat1, mstat2].yearly_cost_sum
Unfortunately define method isn't available from within an instance method.
Replacing this with:
class << self
define_method "yearly_#{method_name}_sum" do
objs.inject(0){|o,sum| sum += o.send(method_name)}
end
end
...also fails because the variables method_name and objs which are defined in the instance are no longer available. Is there an idomatic was to accomplish this in ruby?
(EDITED: I get what you're trying to do now.)
Well, I tried the same approaches that you probably did, but ended up having to use eval
class Foo
METHOD_NAMES = [:foo]
def def_foo
METHOD_NAMES.each { |method_name|
eval <<-EOF
def self.#{method_name}
\"#{method_name}\".capitalize
end
EOF
}
end
end
foo=Foo.new
foo.def_foo
p foo.foo # => "Foo"
f2 = Foo.new
p f2.foo # => "undefined method 'foo'..."
I myself will admit it's not the most elegant solution (may not even be the most idiomatic) but I've run into similar situations in the past where the most blunt approach that worked was eval.
I'm curious what you're getting for o.instance_methods. This is a class-level method and isn't generally available on instances of objects, which from what I can tell, is what you're dealing with here.
Anyway, you probably are looking for method_missing, which will define the method dynamically the first time you call it, and will let you send :define_method to the object's class. You don't need to redefine the same instance methods every time you instantiate a new object, so method_missing will allow you to alter the class at runtime only if the called method hasn't already been defined.
Since you're expecting the name of a method from your other classes surrounded by some pattern (i.e., yearly_base_sum would correspond to a base method), I'd recommend writing a method that returns a matching pattern if it finds one. Note: this would NOT involve making a list of methods on the other class - you should still rely on the built-in NoMethodError for cases when one of your objects doesn't know how to respond to message you send it. This keeps your API a bit more flexible, and would be useful in cases where your stats classes might also be modified at runtime.
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
method_name = matching_method_name(name)
if method_name
self.class.send :define_method, name do |*args|
objs.inject(0) {|obj, sum| sum + obj.send(method_name)}
end
send name, *args, &block
else
super(name, *args, &block)
end
end
def matching_method_name(name)
# ... this part's up to you
end

Ruby: invoke class methods in a module

I have a module, whose purpose is to act on any given ActiveRecord instance.
For argument's sake, let's say that this method puts the string "match" if it matches certain properties with another instance of the same type.
module Foo
def check_against_other_instances
self.all.each do |instance|
if self.respond_to? :color && self.color == instance.color
puts "match"
end
end
end
end
However, I can't just simply call self.all here, because self is an instance. How do I call the class method all from here?
Ah.. found the solution almost right after I asked...
self.class.all.each do |instance|
...
if you want to extend the behavior of rails classes, then you are best of using ActiveSupport::Concern!
http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveSupport/Concern
You can pull the name of a class from an instance and then constantize it.
For example, given a class Thing:
t = Thing.new
t.class.name
# => "Thing"
t.class.name.constantize
# => Thing

searchlogic with globalize2?

Given there is a model:
class MenuItem < ActiveRecord::Base
translates :title
end
and searchlogic is plugged in, I'd expect the following to work:
>> MenuItem.search(:title_like => 'tea')
Sadly, it doesn't:
Searchlogic::Search::UnknownConditionError: The title_like is not a valid condition. You may only use conditions that map to a named scope
Is there a way to make work?
P.S.
The closest I managed to get workging, was:
>> MenuItem.search(:globalize_translations_title_like => 'tea')
Which doesn't look nice.
I developed searchlogic. By default, it leverages existing named scopes and the database columns. It can't really go beyond that because ultimately it has to create the resulting SQL using valid column names. That said, there really is no way for searchlogic to cleanly understand what your :title attribute means. Even if it did, it would be specific to the logic defined in your translation library. Which is a red flag that this shouldn't be in the library itself, but instead a plugin or code that gets initialized within your app.
Why not override the method_missing method and do the mapping yourself? Searchlogic provides and easy way to alias scoped by doing alias_scope:
alias_scope :title_like, lambda { |value| globalize_translations_title_like(value) }
Here's a quick stab (this is untested):
module TranslationsMapping
def self.included(klass)
klass.class_eval do
extend ClassMethods
end
end
module ClassMethods
protected
def method_missing(name, *args, &block)
translation_attributes = ["title"].join("|")
conditions = (Searchlogic::NamedScopes::Conditions::PRIMARY_CONDITIONS +
Searchlogic::NamedScopes::Conditions::ALIAS_CONDITIONS).join("|"))
if name.to_s =~ /^(#{translation_attributes})_(#{conditions})$/
attribute_name = $1
condition_name = $2
alias_scope "#{attribute_name}_#{condition_name}", lambda { |value| send("globalize_translations_#{attribute_name}_#{condition_name}", value) }
send(name, *args, &block)
else
super
end
end
end
end
ActiveRecord::Base.send(:include, TranslationsMapping)
Hope that helps. Again, I haven't tested the code, but you should get the general idea. But I agree, the implementation of the translations should be behind the scenes, you really should never be typing "globalize_translations" anywhere in your app, that should be take care of transparently on the model level.

Resources