Does anyone know of any method in Rails by which an associated object may be frozen. The problem I am having is that I have an order model with many line items which in turn belong to a product or service. When the order is paid for, I need to freeze the details of the ordered items so that when the price is changed, the order's totals are preserved.
I worked on an online purchase system before. What you want to do is have an Order class and a LineItem class. LineItems store product details like price, quantity, and maybe some other information you need to keep for records. It's more complicated but it's the only way I know to lock in the details.
An Order is simply made up of LineItems and probably contains shipping and billing addresses. The total price of the Order can be calculated by adding up the LineItems.
Basically, you freeze the data before the person makes the purchase. When they are added to an order, the data is frozen because LineItems duplicate nessacary product information. This way when a product is removed from your system, you can still make sense of old orders.
You may want to look at a rails plugin call 'AASM' (formerly, acts as state machine) to handle the state of an order.
Edit: AASM can be found here http://github.com/rubyist/aasm/tree/master
A few options:
1) Add a version number to your model. At the day job we do course scheduling. A particular course might be updated occasionally but, for business rule reasons, its important to know what it looked like on the day you signed up. Add :version_number to model and find_latest_course(course_id), alter code as appropriate, stir a bit. In this case you don't "edit" models so much as you do a new save of the new, updated version. (Then, obviously, your LineItems carry a item_id and an item_version_number.)
This generic pattern can be extended to cover, shudder, audit trails.
2) Copy data into LineItem objects at LineItem creation time. Just because you can slap has_a on anything, doesn't mean you should. If a 'LineItem' is supposed to hold a constant record of one item which appeared on an invoice, then make the LineItem hold a constant record of one item which appeared on an invoice. You can then update InventoryItem#current_price at will without affecting your previously saved LineItems.
3) If you're lazy, just freeze the price on the order object. Not really much to recommend this but, hey, it works in a pinch. You're probably just delaying the day of reckoning though.
"I ordered from you 6 months ago and now am doing my taxes. Why won't your bookstore show me half of the books I ordered? What do you mean their IDs were purged when you stopped selling them?! I need to know which I can get deductions for!"
Shouldn't the prices already be frozen when the items are added to the order? Say I put a widget into my shopping basket thinking it costs $1 and by the time I'm at the register, it costs $5 because you changed the price.
Back to your problem: I don't think it's a language issue, but a functional one. Instead of associating the prices with items, you need to copy the prices. If every item in the order has it's own version of a price, future price changes won't effect it, you can add discounts, etc.
Actually, to be clean you need to add versioning to your prices. When an item's price changes, you don't overwrite the price, you add a newer version. The line items in your order will still be associated with the old price.
Related
I am trying to make small POS system, using FDMem table to fill items for the customer.
In case the customer forget his money or go to change a product .. and the customers in the line move and new customer shows up asking to start sale process, how can I save or freeze the current state of the FDMem table holding the products of the previous customer and start a new order and finish the sale. Then, when the first customer comes back, how can I resume the previous sales process and reactivate the previous FDMem table with it's items?
Add one more column in the FDMem table. That column could take 3 values: 'Finalized', 'Opened' and 'Paused' depending how the "status" of the sales is going. You can then navigate between the records.
So if I understand you correctly you want to be able to handle multiple customers or orders at the same time.
One solution one would guess would be to assign each customer unique number and them add that number as additional field to each record in your database. Now assigning unique values to online customers isn't particularly difficult. In fact you already have such information in form of session ID. But doing something like this for customers in a physical store is not feasible.
But there is another similar solution. Most Tax authorities require any shops to issue a receipt for any purchase made. And each of those receipts needs to have a unique number. So you could reserve a new receipt number when customer gets to your POS for the first time and you start adding its items to the system. Then you might want to have another table with all reserved receipt numbers and their current status, so you can know which receipt has been finished which one is still pending completion or which one was cancelled.
I am designing a Fact table to report on loan volume. The grain is one row per loan transaction. A loan has a few major milestones that we report on: In order of sequence, these are Lock Volume, Loan Funding Volume and Loan Sales Volume.
I have Lock Date, Loan Funding Date and Loan Sale Date as FK (there are other dimensions in addition to these) in the Fact table to role playing dimensions off my DimDate table.
My question is, should I create separate Fact Tables to report volume for each major milestone or should I keep all of this in one Fact Table and use a "far in the future" date (e.g., 12/31/2099) for a milestone on a loan that has not been met?
I have read the Kimball books but I didn't find a definitive answer(if one even exists).
Thanks
You may profit from immutable design, by setting the granularity more fine to the milestone level.
This gives you columns
transaction_id
milestone_type
milestone_date
in you fact table. The actual milestone of a transaction is the milestone from the last (most recent) record.
The one adavatage is that you may add new milestone types in the future, but the main gain is, that you never update your fact table - you use inserts only.
You may safe rollback a wrong ETL load, simple by deleting the records; which is while using updates much complicated.
You may also implement more complicated state diagrams, e.g. in case when some milestone is revoked and the transaction falls back in the previous state.
The question if you use one fact table or more depends on the fact if your milestones are homogenous or not. If the milestones have distinct attributes, you may get a more clean desing using dedicated fact tables, but the queries get complicated.
You would rather have only one Fact Table.
That following question and its conversation answer pretty well to the general question of " One or multiple fact tables? ", but maybe not to how to deal with your specific problem of dates.
I'm building a site that tracks donations and sales of items in a school auction.
Items can be sold individually or in lots, which are just groups of items bundled for sale as a single unit (like a gift certificate for a dinner Item bundled with a gift certificate for movie tickets Item).
Both of these things (Items and Lots) share fields like name, description, value. But Items have additional fields, like the donor, restrictions of use, type of item, etc.
I started by creating a table called Lot and an association table that lets Lots contain 1+ Items.
That works great for Lots. But that leaves me with a problem:
When Buyers win I need to record the win and the price. I'm doing that with a Win table that associates the Buyer with the Lot and the winning price.
But how do I deal with all the Items that aren't assigned to Lots? Should every item be in a Lot, just singly? That would make sense because it would work with the Win table scheme above, but I would need to automatically create a Lot for every Item that isn't already in another Lot. Which seems weird.
I'm sure this is a simple problem, but I can't figure it out!
Thanks!
Your approach of treating every item as a lot should be the winning one. It may sound weird, but it will make things way easier in the long run.
I have to deal on a daily base with a database where a similar problem was 'solved' the other way round, meaning keeping bundles of items and items apart and that proved to be a great pita (and for sure I'm not talking about a flat round bread here).
This database is both backbone for statistical evaluations and a bunch of (web) applications and on countless occasions I run into trouble when deciding which table to chose or how to level the differences between those two groups in querying and in coding.
So, even if your project will be rather small eventually, that is a good idea.
Yes, you need to provide a method to put every item in a lot, but this trouble is to be taken just once. On the other hand your queries wouldn't become significantly more complex because of that 'extra' table, so I'd definitely would chose this way.
It sounds like you have an Auction model that could have one or many Items. Then you could have two different types of Auctions, Auction::Single and Auction::Lot. Price would be a column on Auction. Auction has many Bids which is a join model between the Auction and the User (or Bidder). That join model would also store the bid price. When the Auction is over, you could create a separate Win record if you want, or just find the Winner through the highest Bid from Auction.
It would be helpful if you showed some code. But, what you want is a polymorphic association. So, something like:
class Item
has_one :win, as: :winnable
belongs_to :lot
end
class Lot
has_one :win, as: :winnable
has_many :items
end
class Win
belongs_to :buyer
belongs_to :winnable, polymorphic: true
end
How do you store facts within which data is related? And how do you configure the measure? For example, I have a data warehouse that tracks the lifecycle of an order, which changes states - ordered, to shipped, to refunded. And for a state like 'refunded', it is not always there. So in my model, I am employing the transaction store model, so every time the order changes state, it is another row in the fact table. So, for an order that was placed in april, and refunded in may, there will be two rows - one with a state of 'ordered' and another with a state of 'refunded'. So if the user wanted to see all the orders placed/ordered in april, and wanted to see how many of 'those' orders got refunded, how would he see that? Is this a MDX query that will be run at runtime? Is this is a calculated measure I can store in the cube? How would I do that? My thought process is that it should be a fact that the user can use in a pivottable, but I'm not sure.....
One way to model this would be to create a factless fact table to model events. Your ORDERS fact table models the transaction amount, customer information etc, while the factless fact table (perhaps called ORDER_STATUS) models any events that occur in relation to a specific order.
With this model, it's easy to count or add all transactions based on their order status by checking for existence of records in the factless fact table.
How do people generate auto_incrementing integers for a particular user in a typical saas application?
For example, the invoice numbers for all the invoices for a particular user should be auto_incrementing and start from 1. The rails id field can't be used in this case, as it's shared amongst all the users.
Off the top of my head, I could count all the invoices a user has, and then add 1, but does anyone know of any better solution?
Typical solution for any relation database could be a table like
user_invoice_numbers (user_id int primary key clustered, last_id int)
and a stored procedure or a SQL query like
update user_invoice_numbers set last_id = last_id + 1 where user_id = #user_id
select last_id from user_invoice_numbers where user_id = #user_id
It will work for users (if each user has a few simultaneously running transactions) but will not work for companies (for example when you need companies_invoice_numbers) because transactions from different users inside the same company may block each other and there will be a performance bottleneck in this table.
The most important functional requirement you should check is whether your system is allowed to have gaps in invoice numbering or not. When you use standard auto_increment, you allow gaps, because in most database I know, when you rollback transaction, the incremented number will not be rolled back. Having this in mind, you can improve performance using one of the following guidelines
1) Exclude the procedure that you use for getting new numbers from the long running transactions. Let's suppose that insert into invoice procedure is a long running transaction with complex server-side logic. In this case you first acquire a new id , and then, in separate transaction insert new invoice. If last transaction will be rolled back, auto-number will not decrease. But user_invoice_numbers will not be locked for long time, so a lot of simultaneous users could insert invoices at the same time
2) Do not use a traditional transactional database to store the data with last id for each user. When you need to maintain simple list of keys and values there are lot of small but fast database engines that can do that work for you. List of Key/Value databases. Probably memcached is the most popular. In the past, I saw the projects where simple key/value storages where implemented using Windows Registry or even a file system. There was a directory where each file name was the key and inside each file was the last id. And this rough solution was still better then using SQL table, because locks were issued and released very quickly and were not involved into transaction scope.
Well, if my proposal for the optimization seems to be overcomplicated for your project, forget about this now, until you will actually run into performance issues. In most projects simple method with an additional table will work pretty fast.
You could introduce another table associated with your "users" table that tracks the most recent invoice number for a user. However, reading this value will result in a database query, so you might as well just get a count of the user's invoices and add one, as you suggested. Either way, it's a database hit.
If the invoice numbers are independent for each user/customer then it seems like having "lastInvoice" field in some persistent store (eg. DB record) associated with the user is pretty unavoidable. However this could lead to some contention for the "latest" number.
Does it really matter if we send a user invoices 1, 2, 3 and 5, and never send them invoice
4? If you can relax the requirement a bit.
If the requirement is actually "every invoice number must be unique" then we can look at all the normal id generating tricks, and these can be quite efficient.
Ensuring that the numbers are sequenctial adds to the complexity, does it add to the business benefit?
I've just uploaded a gem that should resolve your need (a few years late is better than never!) :)
https://github.com/alisyed/sequenceid/
Not sure if this is the best solution, but you could store the last Invoice ID on the User and then use that to determine the next ID when creating a new Invoice for that User. But this simple solution may have problems with integrity, will need to be careful.
Do you really want to generate the invoice IDs in an incremental format? Would this not open security holes (where in, if a user can guess the invoice number generation, they can change it in the request and may lead to information disclosure).
I would ideally generate the numbers randomly (and keep track of used numbers). This prevents collisions as well (Chances of collision are reduced as the numbers are allocated randomly over a range).