This follows this prior question, which was answered. I actually discovered I could remove a join from that query, so now the working query is
start_cards = DeckCard.find :all, :joins => [:card], :conditions => ["deck_cards.deck_id = ? and cards.start_card = ?", #game.deck.id, true]
This appears to work. However, when I try to move these DeckCards into another association, I get the ActiveRecord::ReadOnlyRecord error.
Here's the code
for player in #game.players
player.tableau = Tableau.new
start_card = start_cards.pop
start_card.draw_pile = false
player.tableau.deck_cards << start_card # the error occurs on this line
end
and the relevant Models (tableau are the players cards on the table)
class Player < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :game
belongs_to :user
has_one :hand
has_one :tableau
end
class Tableau < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :player
has_many :deck_cards
end
class DeckCard < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :card
belongs_to :deck
end
I am doing a similar action just after this code, adding DeckCards to the players hand, and that code is working fine. I wondered if I needed belongs_to :tableau in the DeckCard Model, but it works fine for the adding to player's hand. I do have a tableau_id and hand_id columns in the DeckCard table.
I looked up ReadOnlyRecord in the rails api, and it doesn't say much beyond the description.
Rails 2.3.3 and lower
From the ActiveRecord CHANGELOG(v1.12.0, October 16th, 2005):
Introduce read-only records. If you call object.readonly! then it will
mark the object as read-only and raise
ReadOnlyRecord if you call
object.save. object.readonly? reports
whether the object is read-only.
Passing :readonly => true to any
finder method will mark returned
records as read-only. The :joins
option now implies :readonly, so if
you use this option, saving the same
record will now fail. Use find_by_sql
to work around.
Using find_by_sql is not really an alternative as it returns raw row/column data, not ActiveRecords. You have two options:
Force the instance variable #readonly to false in the record (hack)
Use :include => :card instead of :join => :card
Rails 2.3.4 and above
Most of the above no longer holds true, after September 10 2012:
using Record.find_by_sql is a viable option
:readonly => true is automatically inferred only if :joins was specified without an explicit :select nor an explicit (or finder-scope-inherited) :readonly option (see the implementation of set_readonly_option! in active_record/base.rb for Rails 2.3.4, or the implementation of to_a in active_record/relation.rb and of custom_join_sql in active_record/relation/query_methods.rb for Rails 3.0.0)
however, :readonly => true is always automatically inferred in has_and_belongs_to_many if the join table has more than the two foreign keys columns and :joins was specified without an explicit :select (i.e. user-supplied :readonly values are ignored -- see finding_with_ambiguous_select? in active_record/associations/has_and_belongs_to_many_association.rb.)
in conclusion, unless dealing with a special join table and has_and_belongs_to_many, then #aaronrustad's answer applies just fine in Rails 2.3.4 and 3.0.0.
do not use :includes if you want to achieve an INNER JOIN (:includes implies a LEFT OUTER JOIN, which is less selective and less efficient than INNER JOIN.)
Or in Rails 3 you can use the readonly method (replace "..." with your conditions):
( Deck.joins(:card) & Card.where('...') ).readonly(false)
This might have changed in recent release of Rails, but the appropriate way to solve this problem is to add :readonly => false to the find options.
select('*') seems to fix this in Rails 3.2:
> Contact.select('*').joins(:slugs).where('slugs.slug' => 'the-slug').first.readonly?
=> false
Just to verify, omitting select('*') does produce a readonly record:
> Contact.joins(:slugs).where('slugs.slug' => 'the-slug').first.readonly?
=> true
Can't say I understand the rationale but at least it's a quick and clean workaround.
Instead of find_by_sql, you can specify a :select on the finder and everything's happy again...
start_cards = DeckCard.find :all,
:select => 'deck_cards.*',
:joins => [:card],
:conditions => ["deck_cards.deck_id = ? and cards.start_card = ?", #game.deck.id, true]
To deactivate it...
module DeactivateImplicitReadonly
def custom_join_sql(*args)
result = super
#implicit_readonly = false
result
end
end
ActiveRecord::Relation.send :include, DeactivateImplicitReadonly
Related
I get the following error whenever I try to execute find_with_reputation or count_with_reputation methods.
ArgumentError: Evaluations of votes must have scope specified
My model is defined as follows:
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
has_reputation :votes,
:source => :user,
:scopes => [:up, :down]
The error raises when I try to execute for example:
Post.find_with_reputation(:votes, :up)
or
Post.find_with_reputation(:votes, :up, { order: "likes" } )
Unfortunately, the documentation isn't very clear on how to get around this error. It only states that the method should be executed as follows:
ActiveRecord::Base.find_with_reputation(:reputation_name, :scope, :find_options)
On models without scopes ActiveRecord Reputation System works well with methods such as:
User.find_with_reputation(:karma, :all)
Any help will be most appreciated.
I've found the solution. It seems that ActiveRecord Reputation System joins the reputation and scope names on the rs_reputations table. So, in my case, the reputation names for :votes whose scopes could be either :up or :down are named :votes_up and :votes_down, respectively.
Therefore, find_with_reputation or count_with_reputation methods for scoped models need to be built like this:
Post.find_with_reputation(:votes_up, :all, { conditions: ["votes_up > ?", 0] })
instead of:
Post.find_with_reputation(:votes, :up, { conditions: ["votes_up > ?", 0] })
Note that you'll need to add the conditionsoption to get the desired results, otherwise it will bring all the records of the model instead of those whose votes are positive, for example.
So, I have a Notification model that is polymorphic, and I want to be able to filter out notifications that are of a notifiable_type Comment where comment.user == current_user. In other words, I want all notification records--except for ones referring to comments that were made by the current user.
class Notification
belongs_to :notifiable, :polymorphic => true
scope :relevant, lambda { |user_id|
find(:all, :conditions => [
"notifiable_type != 'Comment' OR (notifiable_type = 'Comment' AND " <<
"comments.user_id != ?)",
user_id ],
:include => :comments
)
}
end
What I don't understand is what I need to do to get access to comments? I need to tell ActiveRecord to outer join the comment model on notifiable_id.
First, lambda scopes with parameters are deprecated. Use a class method instead:
class Notification
belongs_to :notifiable, polymorphic: true
def self.relevant(user_id)
# ...
end
end
I usually move scope functions into their own module, but you can leave it there.
Next, find(:all) is deprecated, as is :conditions. We use ActiveRelation queries now.
Unfortunately, the ActiveRecord::Relation API isn't quite robust enough to do what you need, so we'll have to drop down to ARel instead. A little bit tricky, but you definitely don't want to be doing string substitution for security reasons.
class Notification
belongs_to :notifiable, polymorphic: true
def self.relevant(user_id)
n, c = arel_table, Comment.arel_table
predicate = n.join(c).on(n[:notifiable_id].eq(c[:id]))
joins( predicate.join_sql ).
where{ ( notifiable_type != 'Comment' ) |
(( notifiable_type == 'Comment' ) & ( comments.user_id == my{user_id} ))
}
end
end
I'm using a combination of ARel and Squeel here. Squeel is so good it should be a Rails core feature. I tried writing that where clause without Squeel, but it was so difficult I gave up.
Hard to test something like this without your project handy, but hopefully that should at least get you closer.
Oops, your code has :include => :comments, plural, which threw me off. How about this?
class Notification
belongs_to :notifiable, :polymorphic => true
scope :relevant, lambda { |user_id|
find(:all, :conditions => [
"notifiable_type != 'Comment' OR (notifiable_type = 'Comment' AND " <<
"comments.user_id != ?)",
user_id ],
:include => :notifiable
)
}
end
...then Notification.relevant.first.notifiable should work. From the docs:
Eager loading is supported with polymorphic associations.
class Address < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :addressable, :polymorphic => true
end
A call that tries to eager load the addressable model
Address.find(:all, :include => :addressable)
This will execute one query to load the addresses and load the
addressables with one query per addressable type. For example if all
the addressables are either of class Person or Company then a total of
3 queries will be executed. The list of addressable types to load is
determined on the back of the addresses loaded. This is not supported
if Active Record has to fallback to the previous implementation of
eager loading and will raise
ActiveRecord::EagerLoadPolymorphicError. The reason is that the
parent model’s type is a column value so its corresponding table name
cannot be put in the FROM/JOIN clauses of that query.
(Emphasis mine.)
This is what I've resorted to..... I am still hoping someone can show me a better way.
Notification.find_by_sql( "SELECT * from Notifications " <<
"INNER JOIN comments ON notifiable_id = comments.id " <<
"WHERE notifiable_type != 'Comment' " <<
"OR (notifiable_type = 'Comment' AND comments.user_id = '#{user_id}')"
)
I have a relationship table in a rails application called edit_privileges, in which the User is the "editor" and a number of other classes are "editable". Let's say that two of those classes are Message and Comment.
My EditPrivilege model uses the following code:
belongs_to :editor, :class_name => "User"
belongs_to :editable, :polymorphic => true
And User, of course
has_many :edit_privileges, :foreign_key => "editor_id"
In order to determine if a user has edit privileges for a certain model, I can't do the normal query:
user.edit_privileges.find_by_editable_id(#message.id)
because if the user has edit privileges to edit a comment with the same id as #message, the query will return true with the wrong edit privilege record from the table.
So, I tried doing these options:
user.edit_privileges.find(:all, :conditions => ["editable_id = ? AND editable_type ?", #message.id, #message.class.to_s])
user.edit_privileges.where(:editable_id => #message.id, :editable_type => #message.class.to_s)
which works great at finding the right record, but returns an array instead of an object (an empty array [] if there is no edit privilege). This is especially problematic if I'm trying to create a method to destroy edit privileges, since you can't pass .destroy on an array.
I figure appending .first to the two above solutions returns the first object and nil if the result of the query is an empty has, but is that really the best way to do it? Are there any problems with doing it this way? (like, instead of using dynamic attribute-based finders like find_by_editabe_id_and_editable_type)
Use find(:first, ...) instead of find(:all, ...) to get one record (note it might return nil while find will raise an RecordNotFound exception). So for your example:
user.edit_privileges.find(:first, :conditions => { :editable_id => #message.id, :editable_type => #message.class.to_s })
BTW, if you're on more edge rails version (3.x), Model.where(...).first is the new syntax:
user.edit_privileges.where(:editable_id => #message.id, :editable_type => #message.class.to_s).first
I think it's safe to say everyone loves doing something like this in Rails:
Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true})
This will return all products where the attribute "featured" (which is a database column) is true. But let's say I have a method on Product like this:
def display_ready?
(self.photos.length > 0) && (File.exist?(self.file.path))
end
...and I want to find all products where that method returns true. I can think of several messy ways of doing it, but I think it's also safe to say we love Rails because most things are not messy.
I'd say it's a pretty common problem for me... I'd have to imagine that a good answer will help many people. Any non-messy ideas?
The only reliable way to filter these is the somewhat ugly method of retrieving all records and running them through a select:
display_ready_products = Product.all.select(&:display_ready?)
This is inefficient to the extreme especially if you have a large number of products which are probably not going to qualify.
The better way to do this is to have a counter cache for your photos, plus a flag set when your file is uploaded:
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :photos
end
class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :product, :counter_cache => true
end
You'll need to add a column to the Product table:
add_column :products, :photos_count, :default => 0
This will give you a column with the number of photos. There's a way to pre-populate these counters with the correct numbers at the start instead of zero, but there's no need to get into that here.
Add a column to record your file flag:
add_column :products, :file_exists, :boolean, :null => false, :default => false
Now trigger this when saving:
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
before_save :assign_file_exists_flag
protected
def assign_file_exists_flag
self.file_exists = File.exist?(self.file.path)
end
end
Since these two attributes are rendered into database columns, you can now query on them directly:
Product.find(:all, :conditions => 'file_exists=1 AND photos_count>0')
You can clean that up by writing two named scopes that will encapsulate that behavior.
You need to do a two level select:
1) Select all possible rows from the database. This happens in the db.
2) Within Ruby, select the valid rows from all of the rows. Eg
possible_products = Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true})
products = possible_products.select{|p| p.display_ready?}
Added:
Or:
products = Product.find(:all, :conditions => {:featured => true}).select {|p|
p.display_ready?}
The second select is the select method of the Array object. Select is a very handy method, along with detect. (Detect comes from Enumerable and is mixed in with Array.)
How can I write an AR find query to have the results ordered by the number of records in a has_many association?
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :photos
end
I want to do something like...
User.find(:all, :order => photos.count)
I realize my find is not valid code. Say I have the following data.
User 1, which has 3 photos
User 2, which has 5 photos
User 3, which has 2 photos
I want my find to bring me back the users in the order of...
User 2,
User 1,
User 3
based on the count of of the users photos
The easiest way to achieve this is probably to add a counter cache to that model and then sort by that column.
class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user, :counter_cache => true
end
And be sure to add a column to your users table called photos_count.
Then you will be able to...
User.find(:all, :order => 'photos_count')
If you don't want an extra column, you could always ask for an extra column in the returned result set:
User.all(:select => "#{User.table_name}.*, COUNT(#{Photo.table_name}.id) number_of_photos",
:joins => :photos,
:order => "number_of_photos")
This generates the following SQL:
SELECT users.*, COUNT(photos.id) number_of_photos
FROM `users` INNER JOIN `photos` ON photos.user_id = users.id
ORDER BY number_of_photos
If you don't want to add a counter cache column, your only option is to sort after the find. If you :include the association in your find, you won't incur any additional database work.
users = User.find(:all, :include => :photos).sort_by { |u| -u.photos.size }
Note the negative sign in the sort_by block to sort from high to low.
I would advise you not to write direct SQL, since implementations of it may vary from store to store. Fortunately, you have arel:
User.joins(:photos).group(Photo.arel_table[:user_id]).
order(Photo.arel_table[:user_id].count)
Counter cache will help, but you'll need an extra column in the db.
I'd add this as a comment on the top answer, but I can't for some reason. According to this post:
http://m.onkey.org/active-record-query-interface
The User.all(options) method will be deprecated after Rails 3.0.3, and replaced with a bunch of other (handy, chainable) active record type stuff, but it makes it very hard to figure out how to put together the same kind of query.
As a result, I've gone ahead and implemented the counter cache method. This was pretty easy and painless with the exception that you need to remember to update the column information in your migration, otherwise all existing records will have "0."
Here's what I used in my migration:
class AddUserCountToCollections < ActiveRecord::Migration
def self.up
add_column :collections, :collectionusers_count, :integer, :default => 0
Collection.reset_column_information
Collection.all.each do |c|
Collection.update_counters c.id, :collectionusers_count => c.collectionusers.count
end
end
def self.down
remove_column :collections, :collectionusers_count
end
end
In theory this should be faster, too. Hope that's helpful going forward.
Your question doesn't make sense. The :order parameter specifies a column name and an optional ordering direction i.e. asc(ending) or desc(ending).
What is the result that you're trying to achieve?