select many through many... kind of - ruby-on-rails

This is my first post on Stack, so please bear with me if I breach any protocol.
I'm working on a project in Rails (2.1.2), and I have a relations scenario that looks like this:
event [has_many] days
People (in different categories) can sign up for event days, giving the following binding results:
category [has_many] customers [has_many] orders [has_many] days
[belongs_to] event
Now, I'd like to have the total number of 'events' for one customer, or for all customers in a certain category, and I'm stuck. AFAIK, there's no way of performing a simple 'find' through an array of objects, correct? So, what would be the solution; nested loops, and a collect method to get the 'events' from the 'days' in orders?
Please let me know if I'm unclear.
Thanks for your help!

I would personally do this using a MySQL statement. I don't know for sure, but I think it is a lot faster then the other examples (using the rails provided association methods).
That means that in the Customer model you could do something like:
(Note that I'm assuming you are using the default association keys: 'model_name_id')
class Customer
def events
Event.find_by_sql("SELECT DISTINCT e.* FROM events e, days d, orders o, customers c WHERE c.id=o.customer_id AND o.id=d.order_id AND e.id=d.event_id")
end
end
That will return all the events associated with the user, and no duplicated (the 'DISTINCT' keyword makes sure of that). You will, as with the example above, lose information about what days exactly the user signed up for. If you need that information, please say so.
Also, I haven't included an example for your Category model, because I assumed you could adapt my example yourself. If not, just let me know.
EDIT:
I just read you just want to count the events. That can be done even faster (or at least, less memory intensive) using the count statement. To use that, just use the following function:
def event_count
Event.count_by_sql(SELECT DISTINCT COUNT(e.*) FROM ... ... ...
end

Your models probably look like this:
class Category
has_many :customers
class Customer
has_many :orders
has_many :days, :through => :orders # I added this
belongs_to :category
class Order
has_many :days
belongs_to :customer
class Day
belongs_to :event
belongs_to :order
class Event
has_many :days
With this you can count events for customer:
events = customer.days.count(:group => 'event_id')
It will return OrderedHash like this:
#<OrderedHash {1=>5, 2=>13, 3=>0}>
You can get events count by:
events[event_id]
events[1] # => 5
events[2] # => 13
etc.
If you want total number of uniq events:
events.size # => 3
In case of counting events for all customers in category I'd do something like this:
events = {}
category.customers.each {|c| events.merge!(c.days.count(:group => 'event_id') ) }
events.size # => 9 - it should be total number of events
But in this case you lose information how many times each event appeared.
I didn't test this, so there could be some mistakes.

Related

Mongoid: How do I query for all object where the number of has_many object are > 0

I have a Gift model:
class Gift
include Mongoid::Document
include Mongoid::Timestamps
has_many :gift_units, :inverse_of => :gift
end
And I have a GiftUnit model:
class GiftUnit
include Mongoid::Document
include Mongoid::Timestamps
belongs_to :gift, :inverse_of => :gift_units
end
Some of my gifts have gift_units, but others have not. How do I query for all the gifts where gift.gift_units.size > 0?
Fyi: Gift.where(:gift_units.exists => true) does not return anything.
That has_many is an assertion about the structure of GiftUnit, not the structure of Gift. When you say something like this:
class A
has_many :bs
end
you are saying that instance of B have an a_id field whose values are ids for A instances, i.e. for any b which is an instance of B, you can say A.find(b.a_id) and get an instance of A back.
MongoDB doesn't support JOINs so anything in a Gift.where has to be a Gift field. But your Gifts have no gift_units field so Gift.where(:gift_units.exists => true) will never give you anything.
You could probably use aggregation through GiftUnit to find what you're looking for but a counter cache on your belongs_to relation should work better. If you had this:
belongs_to :gift, :inverse_of => :gift_units, :counter_cache => true
then you would get a gift_units_count field in your Gifts and you could:
Gift.where(:gift_units_count.gt => 0)
to find what you're looking for. You might have to add the gift_units_count field to Gift yourself, I'm finding conflicting information about this but I'm told (by a reliable source) in the comments that Mongoid4 creates the field itself.
If you're adding the counter cache to existing documents then you'll have to use update_counters to initialize them before you can query on them.
I tried to find a solution for this problem several times already and always gave up. I just got an idea how this can be easily mimicked. It might not be a very scalable way, but it works for limited object counts. The key to this is a sentence from this documentation where it says:
Class methods on models that return criteria objects are also treated like scopes, and can be chained as well.
So, get this done, you can define a class function like so:
def self.with_units
ids = Gift.all.select{|g| g.gift_units.count > 0}.map(&:id)
Gift.where(:id.in => ids)
end
The advantage is, that you can do all kinds of queries on the associated (GiftUnits) model and return those Gift instances, where those queries are satisfied (which was the case for me) and most importantly you can chain further queries like so:
Gift.with_units.where(:some_field => some_value)

Query that joins child model results item erroneously shown multiple times

I have the following models, each a related child of the previous one (I excluded other model methods and declarations for brevity):
class Course < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :questions
scope :most_answered, joins(:questions).order('questions.answers_count DESC') #this is the query causing issues
end
class Question < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :course, :counter_cache => true
has_many: :answers
end
class Answer < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :question, :counter_cache => true
end
Right now I only have one Course populated (so when I run in console Course.all.count, I get 1). The first Course currently has three questions populated, but when I run Course.most_answered.count (most_answered is my scope method written in Course as seen above), I get 3 as the result in console, which is incorrect. I have tried various iterations of the query, as well as consulting the Rails guide on queries, but can't seem to figure out what Im doing wrong. Thanks in advance.
From what I can gather, your most_answered scope is attempting to order by the sum of questions.answer_count.
As it is there is no sum, and since there are three answers for the first course, your join on to that table will produce three results.
What you will need to do is something like the following:
scope :most_answered, joins(:questions).order('questions.answers_count DESC')
.select("courses.id, courses.name, ..., SUM(questions.answers_count) as answers_count")
.group("courses.id, courses.name, ...")
.order("answers_count DESC")
You'll need to explicitely specify the courses fields you want to select so that you can use them in the group by clause.
Edit:
Both places where I mention courses.id, courses.name, ... (in the select and the group), you'll need to replace this with the actual columns you want to select. Since this is a scope it would be best to select all fields in the courses table, but you will need to specify them individually.

Rails: Sum of values in all Transactions that belong_to an Activity

Live site: http://iatidata.heroku.com
Github: https://github.com/markbrough/IATI-Data
Based on aid information released through the IATI Registry: iatiregistry.org
I'm a bit of a Rails n00b so sorry if this is a really stupid question.
There are two key Models in this app:
Activity - which contains details
such as recipient country, funding
organisation
Transaction - which contains details such as how much money (value) was committed or disbursed (transaction_type), when, to whom, etc.
All Transactions nest under an Activity. Each Activity has multiple Transactions. They are connected together by activity_id. has_many :transactions and belongs_to :activity are defined in the Activity and Transaction Models respectively.
So: all of this works great when I'm trying to get details of transactions for a single activity - either when looking at a single activity (activity->show) or looping through activities on the all activities page (activity->index). I just call
#activities.each do |activity|
activity.transactions.each do |transaction|
transaction.value # do something like display it
end
end
But what I now really want to do is to get the sum of all transactions for all activities (subject to :conditions for the activity).
What's the best way to do this? I guess I could do something like:
#totalvalue = 0
#activities.each do |activity|
activity.transactions.each do |transaction|
#totalvalue = #totalvalue + transaction.value
end
end
... but that doesn't seem very clean and making the server do unnecessary work. I figure it might be something to do with the model...?! sum() is another option maybe?
This has partly come about because I want to show the total amount going to each country for the nice bubbles on the front page :)
Thanks very much for any help!
Update:
Thanks for all the responses! So, this works now:
#thiscountry_activities.each do |a|
#thiscountry_value = #thiscountry_value + a.transactions.sum(:value)
end
But this doesn't work:
#thiscountry_value = #thiscountry_activities.transactions.sum(:value)
It gives this error:
undefined method `transactions' for #<Array:0xb5670038>
Looks like I have some sort of association problem. This is how the models are set up:
class Transaction < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :activity
end
class Activity < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :policy_markers
has_and_belongs_to_many :sectors
has_many :transactions
end
I think this is probably quite a simple problem, but I can't work out what's going on. The two models are connected together via id (in Activity) and activity_id (in Transactions).
Thanks again!
Use Active Record's awesome sum method, available for classes:
Transaction.sum(:value)
Or, like you want, associations:
activity.transactions.sum(:value)
Let the database do the work:
#total_value = Transaction.sum(:value)
This gives the total for all transactions. If you have some activities already loaded, you can filter them this way:
#total_value = Transaction.where(:activity_id => #activities.map(&:id)).sum(:value)
You can do it with one query:
#total_value = Transaction.joins(:activity).where("activities.name" => 'foo').sum(:value)
My code was getting pretty messy summing up virtual attributes. So I wrote this little method to do it for me. You just pass in a collection and a method name as a string or symbol and you get back a total. I hope someone finds this useful.
def vsum collection, v_attr # Totals the virtual attributes of a collection
total = 0
collection.each { |collect| total += collect.method(v_attr).call }
return total
end
# Example use
total_credits = vsum(Account.transactions, :credit)
Of course you don't need this if :credit is a table column. You are better off using the built in ActiveRecord method above. In my case i have a :quantity column that when positive is a :credit and negative is a :debit. Since :debit and :credit are not table columns they can't be summed using ActiveRecord.
As I understood, you would like to have the sum of all values of the transaction table. You can use SQL for that. I think it will be faster than doing it the Ruby way.
select sum(value) as transaction_value_sum from transaction;
You could do
#total_value = activity.transactions.sum(:value)
http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Calculations/ClassMethods.html

Rails Associations

I have a Rails 2.3.11 app which has two key Models:
Activity
Transaction
Live site: http://iatidata.heroku.com
Github: https://github.com/markbrough/IATI-Data
Every transaction nests under an activity. Each activity has multiple transactions.
I think I've got confused about how associations work in Rails, but maybe what I'm trying to do isn't possible.
Essentially, I want to get the total value of the transactions of all the activities which belong to each country. So how much money went to India, how much to Afghanistan, etc.
This works:
#thiscountry_activities.each do |a|
#thiscountry_value = #thiscountry_value + a.transactions.sum(:value)
end
But this doesn't work:
#thiscountry_value = #thiscountry_activities.transactions.sum(:value)
It gives this error:
undefined method `transactions' for #<Array:0xb5670038>
#thiscountry_activities is defined like this:
#activities = Activity.find(:all, :conditions=> #conditions)
This is placed within a loop which gets each recipient country code. #conditions are :
#conditions[:recipient_country_code]=*each recipient country code, e.g. AF*
Looks like I have some sort of association problem. This is how the models are set up:
class Transaction < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :activity
end
class Activity < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :policy_markers
has_and_belongs_to_many :sectors
has_many :transactions
end
I think this is probably quite a simple problem, but I can't work out what's going on. The two models are connected together via id (in Activity) and activity_id (in Transactions).
Thank you!
Nothing is broken, the find method in Rails2 returns an Array - and there is no transactions method on the Array class. Use the first thing you have that's working, with the each iterator, or work from the other side - from Transaction and grouping by the activity. It's been a while since I wrote Rails2 code, but it'll be something like this:
Transaction.all( :select => "activity_id, SUM(value) AS total", :group => 'activity_id' )
That's not ready to copy-paste into your app as-is because there are some things about your app which aren't clear to me, but hopefully it sets you in the right direction.

Overwriting/Adding an ActiveRecord association dynamically using a singleton class

The business logic is this: Users are in a Boat through a join table, I guess let's call that model a Ticket. But when a User instance wants to check who else is on the boat, there's a condition that asks if that user has permission see everyone on the Boat, or just certain people on the Boat. If a User can see everyone, the normal deal is fine: some_user.boats.first.users returns all users with a ticket for that boat. But for some users, the only people that are on the boat (as far as they're concerned) are people in, let's say the dining room. So if User's ticket is "tagged" (using an acts_as_taggable style system) with "Dining Room", the only Users returned from some_user.boats.first.users should be Users with tickets tagged "Dining Room".
Just for the record, I'm not trying to design something to be insane from the getgo - I'm trying to wedge this arbitrary grouping into a (mostly) existent system.
So we've got:
class User
has_many :tickets
has_many :boats, :through => :tickets
end
class Ticket
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :boat
end
class Boat
has_many :tickets
has_many :users, :through => :tickets
end
Initially, I thought that I could conditionally modify the virtual class like:
singleton = class << a_user_instance ; self ; end
singleton.class_eval(<<-code
has_many :tickets, :include => :tags, :conditions => ['tags.id in (?)', [#{tag_ids.to_s(:db)}]]
code
)
That gets all the way down to generating the SQL, but when generated, it generates SQL ending in:
LEFT OUTER JOIN "tags" ON ("tags"."id" = "taggings"."tag_id") WHERE ("tickets"._id = 1069416589 AND (tags.id in (5001,4502)))
I've tried digging around the ActiveRecord code, but I can't find anywhere that would prefix that 'id' in the SQL above with an underscore. I know that associations are loaded when an ActiveRecord class is loaded, and I'd assume the same with a singleton class. shrug.
I also used an alias_method_chain like:
singleton = class << a_user_instance ; self ; end
singleton.class_eval(<<-code
def tickets_with_tag_filtering
tags = Tag.find(etc, etc)
tickets_without_tag_filtering.scoped(:include => :tags, :conditions => {:'tags.id' => tags})
end
alias_method_chain :tickets, :tag_filtering
code
)
But while that approach produces the desired Tickets, any joins on those tickets use the conditions in the class, not the virtual class. some_user.boats.first.users returns all users.
Any type of comment will be appreciated, especially if I'm barking up the wrong tree with this approach. Thanks!
So a wild guess about your underscore issue is that Rails is generating the assocation code based on the context at the time of evaluation. Being in a singleton class could mess this up, like so:
"#{owner.table_name}.#{association.class.name}_id = #{association.id}"
You could get in there and define a class name property on your singleton class and see if that fixes the issue.
On the whole I don't recommend this. It creates behavior that is agonizing to track down and impossible to extend effectively. It creates a landmine in the codebase that will wound you or someone you love at a later time.
Instead, consider using a named_scope declaration:
class User
has_many :taggings, :through => :tickets
named_scope :visible_to, lambda { |looking_user|
{ :include => [ :tickets, :taggings ],
:conditions => [ "tickets.boat_id in (?) and taggings.ticket_id = tickets.id and taggings.tag_id in (?)", looking_user.boat_ids, looking_user.tag_ids ]
}
}
end
While you may have to go back and edit some code, this is much more flexible in the ways it can be used:
Boat.last.users.visible_to( current_user )
It's clear that a restriction is being placed on the find, and what the purpose of that restriction is. Because the conditions are dynamically calculated at runtime, you can deal with the next weird modification your client hits you with. Say some of their users have xray vision and clairvoyance:
class User
named_scope :visible_to, lambda { |looking_user|
if looking_user.superhuman?
{}
else
{ :include => [ :tickets, :taggings ],
:conditions => [ "tickets.boat_id in (?) and taggings.ticket_id = tickets.id and taggings.tag_id in (?)", looking_user.boat_ids, looking_user.tag_ids ]
}
end
}
end
By returning an empty hash, you can effectively nullify the effect of the scope.
Why not just grab all users on the boat and include their tags.
Then run a quick filter to include & return only the users with the same tag as the inquiring user.
What version of Rails are you using? Have you tried upgrading to see if the underscore issue is fixed? It's like it can't find the foreign key to put in as "tag_id" or somethin'.
My ruby-fu is limited, so I'm not sure how to dynamically include the correct method options at run-time.
Just to help you clarify, you have to worry about this two places. You want to filter a user's viewable users so they only see users with the same tags. Your structure is:
user <--> tickets <--> boats <--> tickets <--> users
... right?
So, you need to filter both sets of tickets down to the ones with the current_user's tags.
Maybe you just need a current_user.viewable_users() method and then filter everything through that? I'm not sure what existing functionality you've got to preserve.
Blech, I don't feel like I'm helping you at all. Sorry.
Your approach is the problem. I know it seems expedient at the moment to hack something in where you don't have to refactor the existing call sites, but I believe given time this will come back to haunt you as the source of bugs and complexity.
Sleeping dogs that lie come back to bite you hard, in my experience. Typically in the form of a future developer who doesn't know your association is "magic" and uses it assuming it's just pail ole rails. He/she likely won't even have a reason to write a test case that would expose the behavior either, which raises the odds you'll only find out about the bug when it's live in production and the client is unhappy. Is it really worth the time you're saving now?
Austinfrombostin is pointing the way. Different semantics? Different names. Rule number one is always to write code that says what it does as clearly as possible. Anything else is the path of madness.

Resources