Something like this:
class Category
SOME_CATEGORY = find_by_name("some category")
end
Category::SOME_CATEGORY
tried without a problem, but want to know if it is a bad idea, and the reasons if any..
thanks
If you don't want to hit the database each time you'll have to cache the model. There are several ways to do this, but one quick way is using Memoization. This was introduced in Rails 2.2.
class Category < ActiveRecord::Base
class << self
extend ActiveSupport::Memoizable
def named(name)
find_by_name(name)
end
memoize :named
end
end
Use it like this.
Category.named("some category") # hits the database
Category.named("some category") # doesn't hit the database
The cache should stay persistent across requests. You can reset the cache by passing true as the last parameter.
Category.named("some category", true) # force hitting the database
What do you want to do?
Maybe:
class Category
def self.some_category
Category.find_by_name("some category")
end
end
So you can call:
Category.some_category
=> <Category#2....>
It's not a terrible idea, but it's not really a good one either. It doesn't really fall in line with the way Rails does things. For one thing, you'll end up with a lot of ugly constant code. Too many ALL_CAPS_WORDS and your Ruby starts to look like C++. Bleah.
For another, it's inflexible. Are you going to make one of these constants for every category? If you add a new category two months from now, will you remember to update your Rails code, add a new constant, redeploy it and restart your server?
If it's important to you to be able to access categories very easily, and not repeat DB queries, here's a bit of metaprogramming that'll automatically look them up and create static methods like Lichtamberg's for you on first access:
def self.method_missing(category, *args) # The 'self' makes this a class method
#categories ||= {}
if (#categories[category] = find_by_name(category.to_s))
class_eval "def self.#{category.to_s}; #categories[#{category}]; end"
return #categories[category]
end
super
end
With this method in place, whenever you first call Category.ham, it'll create a class method that returns the value of find_by_name("ham") -- so that neither the query nor method_missing() runs again the next time you call it. This is pretty much the way the OpenStruct class works, BTW; look it up in the Pickaxe book if you want to learn more.
(Of course you'll still have the risk that, because these are all memoized, your Rails app won't reflect any changes you make to your category objects. This makes the assumption that changes won't happen or don't really matter. It's up to you to determine whether that assumption is valid for your app. You could always put an after_update callback in your code that resets ##categories if that's a problem; but at that point this starts to get complicated.)
Related
I have a monkeypatched of ActiveRecord find with some business logic, for example:
# lib/core_extensions/active_record/finder_methods/finder.rb
module ActiveRecord
module FinderMethods
def find(*args)
return super if block_given?
#... business logic code => my_error_control = true
raise "My Error" if my_error_control
retorn = find_with_ids(*args)
end
end
end
retorn
I have not seen many examples like this, and this causes me a doubt:
Where should finder.rb be?
In this example, this file is in lib/core_extensions/... but if it contains business logic, I think finder.rb should lives in the folder app/core_extensions/ isn't it?
Edited, after Sergio Answer
things like this, are a bad practice?
# lib/core_extensions/nil_class/image_attributes.rb
# suport for product images attributes
class NilClass
def main_image(size,evita_video)
"/images/paperclip_missing/original/missing.png"
end
end
Where should finder.rb be?
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. It only matters that this code gets loaded. This mix of patching base libraries and adding business logic there looks like something that MUST be documented thoroughly (in the project's wiki or something like that). And if it is documented, then it doesn't matter. The code is where the documentation says it is.
That being out of the way, here's a design suggestion:
when user seeks a Family Family.find(params[family_id],session[:company_id]), this find will compare the company of the family result family.company witht the parameter
Why not do something like this:
family = current_company.families.find(params[:family_id])
where current_company can be defined as #current_company ||= Company.find(session[:company_id])
Here, if this company doesn't have this family, you'll get an exception.
Same effect*, only without any patching. Much more futureproof. You can even add a couple of rubocop rules to ensure that you never write a naked Family.find.
* it's not like you add that patch and rest of your code magically acquires super-powers. No. You still have to change all the finders, to pass that company id.
It's the first time I see such case :). I'd put it in app/core_extensions and check if live reloading works correctly with it. If not, I'd move it to lib/. (It's just a heuristic)
Edit:
Instead of extending NilClass I'd rather use regular NullObjects. It's really less surprising and easier to understand.
https://robots.thoughtbot.com/rails-refactoring-example-introduce-null-object
I'm working with a massive legacy code base, so I am looking for advice concerning this particular issue, please, not suggestions of better high-level implementations.
A simplified version of what I'm working with:
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :line_items
#other stuff
def balance
#some definition
end
end
class LineItem < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
#other stuff
end
module Concerns
module LineItems
module Aggregates
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
#stuff
def balance
#some other definition
end
end
end
end
Order has a method called 'balance,' and a module of LineItem also has a method called 'balance.' It seems that most of the time (in most places in the code base), when specific_line_item.balance is called, it used the method definition under the LineItem module, but there are a couple of places where it instead calls the method from Order.
Is there any way in Ruby/Rails to specify on method call which of these two I'd like to use? OR is there probably something else going on here because Ruby doesn't have method overloading, so the problem I'm describing here isn't possible?
All relevant cases where either method is called are coming from a line_item (i.e. specific_line_item.balance), so I would think it would always choose the method closer to home, rather than making the associative jump and calling Order's 'balance' method without being told to.
EDIT:
Thanks for the responses! It seems I wasn't clear enough with my question. I understand the difference between
Order.first.balance
and
LineItem.first.balance
and that the balance method being called is the one defined within the class for that object. In the situation I'm describing, I observed, in the actual live app environment, that at a place in the code where
LineItem.find(some_id).balance
was called it output not the result that would be computed by the LineItem 'balance' method, but the one from the Order class.
So I had hoped to learn that there's some ruby quirk that might have an object call an associate's method of the same name under some conditions, rather than it's own. But I'm thinking that's not possible, so there's probably something else going on under the covers specific to this situation.
Firstly, ActiveRecord::Concern can change a lot of behaviour and you've left out a lot of code, most crucially, I don't know where it's being injected, but I can make an educated guess.
For a Concern's methods to be available a given object, it must be include'd in the object's class's body.
If you have access to an instance of the Order object, at any point you can call the balance method:
order = Orders.last # grab the last order in your database
order.balance # this will call Order#balance
And if you have the Order then you can also get the LineItem:
order.line_items.first.balance # should call the Concerns:: LineItems::Aggregates#balance
You can open up a Rails console (with rails console) and run the above code to see if it works as you expect. You'll need a working database to get meaningful orders and balances, and you might need to poke around to find a completed order, but Ruby is all about exploration and a REPL is the place to go.
I'd also grep (or ag or ack) the codebase looking for calls to balance maybe doing something like grep -r "(^|\s)\w+\.balance" *, what you want to look for is the word before .balance, that is the receiver of the "balance" message, if that receiver is an Order object then it will call Order#balance and if it is a LineItem object then it will call Concerns:: LineItems::Aggregates#balance instead.
I get the feeling you're not familiar with Ruby's paradigm, and if that's the case then an example might help.
Let's define two simple Ruby objects:
class Doorman
def greet
puts "Good day to you sir!"
end
end
class Bartender
def greet
puts "What are you drinking?"
end
end
Doorman and Bartender both have a greet method, and which is called depends on the object we call greet on.
# Here we instantiate one of each
a_doorman = Doorman.new
a_bartender = Bartender.new
a_doorman.greet # outputs "Good day to you sir!"
a_bartender.greet # outputs "What are you drinking?"
We're still using a method called greet but the receiver is what determines which is called.
Ruby is a "message passing language" and each "method" is not a function but it's a message that is passed to an object and handled by that object.
References
How to use concerns in Rails 4
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveSupport/Concern.html
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/command_line.html#rails-console
Going to simplify a bit here, but assume an app that has Users and UserRecords. A User must have one or more UserRecords. I want to limit the creation of UserRecords to a method in User, namely #create_new_user_record.
In other words, I don't want to allow UserRecord.new or UserRecords.create anywhere else in the application. I need to control the creation of these records, and perform some logic around them (for example, setting the new one current and any others to not current), and I don't want any orphaned UserRecords in the database.
I tried the after_initialize callback and checking if the object is new and raising an error there, but of course I do need to call UserRecord.new in User#create_new_user_record. If I could somehow flag in #create_new_user_record that I am calling new from that method, and pick that up in after_intialize, that would work, but how?
I might be over thinking it. I can certainly create a that method on User, and just 'know' to always call it. But others will eventually work on this app, and I will go away and come back to it as some point.
I suppose I could raise the error and just rescue from it in #create_new_user_record. Then at least, if another develop tries it elsewhere they will find out why I did it when they pursue the error.
Anyway, wondering what the Rails gurus here had to say about it.
super method is what you are looking for. Though you'll need some workaround (maybe simple check for value of option only you know about) to fit your needs
class User < ActiveRecord:Base
def .new(attributes = nil, options = {})
do_your_fancy_stuff
if option[:my_secret_new_method]
super # call AR's .new method and automatically pass all the arguments
end
end
Ok, here's what I did. Feel free to tell me if this is bad idea or, if it's an ok idea, if there's a better way. For what it's worth, this does accomplish my goal.
In the factory method in the User model, I send a custom parameter in the optional options hash defined on the new method in the API. Then I in the UserRecord#new override, I check for this parameter. If it's true, I create and return the object, otherwise I raise in custom error.
In my way of thinking, creating a UserRecord object any other way is an error. And a developer who innocently attempts it would be lead to explanatory comments in the two methods.
One thing that's not clear to me is why I need to leave off the options hash when I call super. Calling super with it causes the ArgumentError I posted in my earlier comment. Calling super without it seems to work fine.
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
...
def create_new_user_record
# do fancy stuff here
user_record = UserRecord.new( { owner_id: self.id, is_current: true }, called_from_factory: true )
user_record.save
end
...
end
class UserRecord < ActiveRecord::Base
...
def UserRecord.new(attributes = nil, options = {})
if options[:called_from_factory] == true
super(attributes)
else
raise UseFactoryError, "You must use factory method (User#create_new_user_record) to create UserRecords"
end
end
...
end
In my application there can be only one current Event which defaults to the nearest date event. I need to retrieve this event in various places and since it doesn't change it makes sense to cache it. There are two ways of doing it known to me:
class Event < ActiveRecord::Base
CURRENT_EVENT = Event.where('starts_on >= ?', Time.now).
order('starts_on ASC').limit(1).first
# OR
def self.current_event
##current_event ||= Event.where('starts_on >= ?', Time.now).
order('starts_on ASC').limit(1).first
end
end
Which one would be the best? Or any other alternatives? I know that using ## class variables is not recommended since they are not thread safe.
I guess you aren't right about your approach: this way your app will keep your cached value forever. New events won't affect it which is completely wrong. It may be the situation when some event already passed but it is still cached as "current".
By the way: limit(1).first does the same as the only first.
Neither first nor second approach are correct. If you define constant - it will find Event, actual on Rails initialization process time. Second approach will not cache your record.
As for me, this is not so fat data to cache.
Lets say that on top of my Rails app there is a bar with piece of text displayed - latest hot deal, scheduled downtime notfication, something like that. It's a single, on of a kind information that needs to be accessed on basically every request, and may be updated from time to time. What is the best way to achieve this?
What I'd like to do is some kind of permanent global variable (accessible from controllers).
It will be updated very rarely, so there's no problem if for some time after update there will be an inconsistency between workers.
On the other hand, it should be persistent in case of server fault (periodic backup is enough).
It will be accessed really often, so it should be as fast as possible - preferably stay in memory.
Also, it's only one of a kind, so I'd really prefer not to bloat the app with a dedicated database model.
Something like that is damn easy in Node.js for example, but I couldn't find a single way to achieve this in Rails. What shall I do?
EDIT
Thanks for the answers so far, but while they're inspiring, I think that I should stress out one key functionality that they're all missing. The variable should be editable inside the app and persistent. While it's possible to edit your variables, in case of server restart I'm back to the default - which is bad.
It really depends on what you are looking for. You could do something very simply by putting it in your application_controller.rb
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
def system_message
"Come buy our amazing .99 iphone chocolate bar apps, with 100% more gamification!"
end
end
That function (and string) is then accessible from any controller in your application. You could also specify something in the after_initialize block in your application.rb file.
config.after_initialize do
::MYTEXT = "MY SUPER AMAZING TEXT"
end
You could also create your own file under the initializers directory, which is preloaded in rails.
so siteAnnounce.rb
MYANNOUNCEMENT = "NOW LISTEN TO ME!"
You may also want to check out this Railscast video about site wide announcements
I would store it in the database and let caching take care of it.
I feel that global variables are fine, when appropriate, for code that needs to share that common value in many places but that is the code, not the the user view.
This is clearly true in this case as the OP has bolded 'editable by the app'. So I would have a view that lets the users enter it, it gets stored in a db table and then recalled as needed (as cached once used once).
Well I had faced a similar problem.
My problem was I needed a global variable in all the levels (MVC).
We went to use Memcache to store the variable.
May be you can go for a similar solution.
And as an added bonus you can change it throughout the program.
You could declare it as a constant in an initializer:
config/initialzers/foo.rb:
MYVARIABLE = 'some string'
Accessible from anywhere in your application as MYVARIABLE
Ok, so here's what I did. Instead of just putting the value to an initializer, I've made there a simple class that handles it. The variable itself is stored in a predefined file. Besides of reading the file upon the initialization, the class updates file when the value is changed, and also re-read the file periodically to maintain consistency across workers. I've also put there some basic JSON handling and backup functionality to make life easier.
For anyone interested, here's the important code:
class Pomegranate
def initialize
#delay = 30.minutes
#path = "db/pomegranate.json"
#valid = Time.now - 1
validate
end
def get(*p)
validate
p.inject(#data) {|object,key| object[key] if object}
end
def set(*p, q, v)
hash = p.inject(#data) {|object,key| object[key]||={}}
hash[q] = v
end
def save
#valid = Time.now + #delay
File.open(#path,"w") {|f| f.write(#data.to_json)}
end
private
def validate
if #valid < Time.now
#data = ActiveSupport::JSON.decode(File.read(#path)) rescue {}
#valid = Time.now + #delay
#valid = Time.now - 1 if #data.empty?
end
end
end
$pom = Pomegranate.new
Source:
Where to put Global variables in Rails 3
Try putting it in your applicaton.rb like this:
module MyAppName
class Application < Rails::Application
YOUR_GLOBAL_VAR = "test"
end
end
Then you can call it with the namespace in your controllers, views or whatever..
MyAppName::Application::YOUR_GLOBAL_VAR
Another alternative would be using something like settingslogic. With settingslogic, you just create a yml config file and a model (Settings.rb) that points to the config file. Then you can access these settings anywhere in your rails app with:
Settings.my_setting
I've started putting constants and variables like this in the configuration object, e.g.
TestApp::Application.config.foo = 'bar'
TestApp::Application.config.something = { :a => 1, :b => 2 }