I have a piece of code here that i really could use some help with refactoring. I need the different methods for adding relational data in a form in rails. The code is taken from http://railscasts.com/episodes/75-complex-forms-part-3, my problem is that i need to have the methods fro both the Material model and the Answer model. So i need the exact same code twice with "materials" replaced by "answers".
It seems this should be solved with some dynamic programming? But I have no experience at all with that.
How is this solved?
after_update :save_materials
after_update :save_answers
def new_material_attributes=(material_attributes)
material_attributes.each do |attributes|
materials.build(attributes)
end
end
def existing_material_attributes=(material_attributes)
materials.reject(&:new_record?).each do |material|
attributes = material_attributes[material.id.to_s]
if attributes
material.attributes = attributes
else
materials.delete(material)
end
end
end
def save_materials
materials.each do |material|
material.save(false)
end
end
You might also want to take a look at this site:
http://refactormycode.com/
If I understood you correctly, you want to have the same methods for answers as for materials, but duplicating the least code. The way to do this is by abstracting some private methods that will work for either answers or materials and call them with the appropriate model from the methods specific to those models. I've given a sample below. Note that I didn't do anything with the save_ methods because I felt they were short enough that abstracting them really didn't save much.
after_update :save_materials
after_update :save_answers
// Public methods
def new_material_attributes=(material_attributes)
self.new_with_attributes(materials, material_attributes)
end
def new_answer_attributes=(answer_attributes)
self.new_with_attributes(answers, answer_attributes)
end
def existing_material_attributes=(material_attributes)
self.existing_with_attributes(materials, material_attributes)
end
def existing_answer_attributes=(answer_attributes)
self.existing_with_attributes(answers, answer_attributes)
end
def save_materials
materials.each do |material|
material.save(false)
end
end
def save_answers
answers.each do |answer|
answer.save(false)
end
end
// Private methods
private
def new_with_atttributes(thing,attributes)
attributes.each do |attribute|
thing.build(attribute)
end
end
def existing_with_attributes=(things, attributes)
things.reject(&:new_record?).each do |thing|
attrs = attributes[thing.id.to_s]
if attrs
thing.attributes = attrs
else
things.delete(thing)
end
end
end
Related
I have method in my rails model which returns anonymous class:
def today_earnings
Class.new do
def initialize(user)
#user = user
end
def all
#user.store_credits.where(created_at: Time.current.beginning_of_day..Time.current.end_of_day)
end
def unused
all.map { |el| el.amount - el.amount_used }.instance_eval do
def to_f
reduce(:+)
end
end
end
def used
all.map(&:amount_used).instance_eval do
def to_f
reduce(:+)
end
end
end
end.new(self)
end
I want to achieve possibility to chain result in that way user.today_earning.unused.to_f and I have some problems with instance eval because when I call to_f on result it's undefined method, I guess it is due to ruby copying returned value so the instance gets changed, is it true? And if I'm correct how can I change the code to make it work. Also I'm wondering if making new model can be better solution than anomyous class thus I need advice if anonymous class is elegant in that case and if so how can I add to_f method to returned values
Yes, Anonymous class makes the code much complex. I would suggest a seperate class. It will solve 2 problems here.
defining some anonymous class again and again when we call the today_earnings method.
Readability of the code.
Now coming to actual question, you can try something similar to hash_with_indifferent_access. The code looks as follows.
class NumericArray < Array
def to_f
reduce(:+)
end
end
Array.class_eval do
def with_numeric_operations
NumericArray.new(self)
end
end
Usage will be:
Class Earnings
def initialize(user)
#user = user
end
def all
#user.store_credits.where(created_at: Time.current.beginning_of_day..Time.current.end_of_day)
end
def unused
all.map { |el| el.amount - el.amount_used }.with_numeric_operations
end
def used
all.map(&:amount_used).with_numeric_operations
end
end
This looks like a "clever" but ridiculously over-complicated way to do something that can be simply and efficiently done in the database.
User.joins(:store_credits)
.select(
'users.*',
'SUM(store_credits.amount_used) AS amount_used',
'SUM(store_credits.amount) - amount_used AS unused',
)
.where(store_credits: { created_at: Time.current.beginning_of_day..Time.current.end_of_day })
.group(:id)
So I got introduced to using PORO instead of AR object for abstraction and size reduction.
But I have so many AR tables didn't make sense to put so much time to build a PORO class for each and every. Would take like a hour or two!! So instead I spent many hours thinking about how can I make this simpler.
And this is what I ended up making:
class BasePORO
def initialize(obj, immutable = true)
self.class::ATTRIBUTES.each do |attr|
instance_variable_set("##{attr}".to_sym, obj.attributes[attr.to_s])
instance_eval("undef #{attr}=") if immutable
end
end
end
class UserPORO < BasePORO
# or plug your own attributes
ATTRIBUTES = User.new.attributes.keys.map(&:to_sym).freeze
attr_accessor(*ATTRIBUTES)
end
But I can't somehow move the attr_accessor into the Base class or even ATTRIBUTES when not given explicitly. Not sure if its possible even.
Can I somehow move attr_accessor and default ATTRIBUTES into the main BasePORO class?
Any pointers or feedback is welcome.
As suggested in the comments, OpenStruct can do most of the heavy lifting for you. One thing to note is that if you don't freeze it, then after it's initialization you'll be able to add more attributes to it throughout its lifetime, e.g.:
struct = OpenStruct.new(name: "Joe", age: 20)
struct.email = "joe#example.com" # this works
p struct.email # => "joe#example.com"
(so essentially it works like a Hash with object-like interface)
This behavior may be undesired. And if you do freeze the struct, it won't allow any more attributes definition, but then you'd also lose the ability to override existing values (which I think you want to do in cases when someone sets immutable to false).
For the immutable flag to work as I understand you to expect it, I'd create a class that uses OpenStruct under its hood, for example like this:
class BasePORO
def initialize(obj, immutable = true)
#immutable = immutable
#data = OpenStruct.new(obj.attributes)
obj.attributes.keys.each do |attr|
self.class.define_method(attr.to_sym) do
#data.send(attr.to_sym)
end
self.class.define_method("#{attr}=".to_sym) do |new_value|
if #immutable
raise StandardError.new("#{self} is immutable")
else
#data.send("#{attr}=".to_sym, new_value)
end
end
end
end
end
class UserPORO < BasePORO
end
BTW, if you insisted on having a solution similar to the one shown in the question, then you could achieve this with something like that:
class BasePORO
def initialize(obj, immutable = true)
#immutable = immutable
attributes.each do |attr|
instance_variable_set("##{attr}".to_sym, obj.attributes[attr.to_s])
self.class.define_method(attr.to_sym) do
instance_variable_get("##{attr}".to_sym)
end
self.class.define_method("#{attr}=".to_sym) do |new_value|
if #immutable
raise StandardError.new("#{self} is immutable")
else
instance_variable_set("##{attr}".to_sym, new_value)
end
end
end
end
private
# default attributes
def attributes
[:id]
end
end
class UserPORO < BasePORO
private
# overriding default attributes from BasePORO
def attributes
User.new.attributes.keys.map(&:to_sym).freeze
end
end
So this is what actually ended up with:
class BaseStruct < OpenStruct
def initialize(model, immutable: true, only: [], includes: [])
if only.empty?
hash = model.attributes
else
hash = model.attributes.slice(*only.map!(&:to_s))
end
includes.each do |i|
relation = model.public_send(i)
if relation.respond_to?(:each)
hash[i.to_s] = relation.map{|r| OpenStruct.new(r.attributes).freeze}
else
hash[i.to_s] = OpenStruct.new(relation.attributes).freeze
end
end
super(hash)
self.freeze if immutable
end
end
Feel free to critique or suggest improvements.
I want some of my model attributes to predefined dynamically. I have various models.And now I want My Bill model to create objects using other model instances.
Models :
leave.rb # belongs_to :residents
resident.rb # has_many:leaves,has_many:bills,has_one:account
bill.rb # belongs_to:residents
rate_card.rb # belongs_to:hostel
account.rb # belongs_to:resident
hostel.rb
now here is my bills controller create method :
def create
#bill = Resident.all.each { |resident| resident.bills.create(?) }
if #bill.save
flash[:success]="Bills successfully generated"
else
flash[:danger]="Something went wrong please try again !"
end
end
I want to build bill using all of the models eg:
resident.bills.create(is_date:using form,to_date:using form,expiry_date:using form,amount:30*(resident.rate_card.diet)+resident.rate_card.charge1+resident.rate_card.charge2)+(resident.account.leaves)*10+resident.account.fine)
///////Is this possible ?
And how to use strong params here ?
Pls help me out thxx..
I think the Rails way for this logic you want is with callbacks if you want calculated attributes either on create, update or delete, meaning attributes that depend on other models. For instance:
class Bill < ActiveRecord::Base
...
before_create :set_amount
...
protected
def set_amount
self.amount = 30 * self.resident.rate_card.diet + self.resident.rate_card.charge1 + self.resident.rate_card.charge2 + (self.resident.account.leaves) * 10 + self.resident.account.fine
end
end
If you want this logic to be used when updating the record also, then you should use before_save instead of before_create.
After you do this, you should accept the usual params (strong) of Bill model, as in:
def bill_params
params.require(:bill).permit(:is_date, :to_date, :expiry_date)
end
So your create call would be like:
resident.bills.create(bill_params)
Also, be wary of your create action, you should probably create a method either on your Bill or your Resident model that uses transactions to create all bills at the same time because you probably want either every bill created or none. This way you won't have the Resident.all.each logic in your BillsController.
create takes a hash, you can:
create_params = { amount: 30*(resident.rate_card.diet) }
create_params[:some_field] = params[:some_field]
# and so on
resident.bills.create(create_params)
or:
obj = resident.bills.build(your_strong_parameters_as_usual)
obj.amount = # that calculation
obj.save!
I'm confused at your syntax of your controller. #bill is being set to the value of a loop, which feels off. Each loops return the enumerable you cycle through, so you'll end up with #bill = Resident.all with some bills being created on the side.
What your controller really wants to know is, did my many new bills save correctly?
This seems like a perfect place to use a ruby object (or, colloquially, a Plain Old Ruby Object, as opposed to an ActiveRecord object) to encapsulate the specifics of this bill-generator.
If I'm reading this right, it appears that you are generating many bills at once, based on form-inputted data like:
is_date
to_date
expiry_date
...as well as some data about each individual resident.
Here's the model I'd create:
app/models/bill_generator.rb
class BillGenerator
include ActiveModel::Model
# This lets you do validations
attr_accessor :is_date, :to_date, :expiry_date
# This lets your form builder see these attributes when you go form.input
attr_accessor :bills
# ...for the bills we'll be generating in a sec
validates_presence_of :is_date, :to_date, :expiry_date
# You can do other validations here. Just an example.
validate :bills_are_valid?
def initialize(attributes = {})
super # This calls the Active Model initializer
build_new_bills # Called as soon as you do BillGenerator.new
end
def build_new_bills
#bills = []
Resident.all.each do |r|
#bills << r.bills.build(
# Your logic goes here. Not sure what goes into a bill-building...
# Note that I'm building (which means not-yet-saved), not creating
)
end
def save
if valid?
#bills.each { |b| b.save }
true
else
false
end
end
private
def bills_are_valid?
bill_validity = true
#bills.each do |b|
bill_validity = false unless b.valid?
end
bill_validity
end
end
Why all this mess? Because in your controller you can do...
app/controllers/bill_controller.rb
def create
#bill_generator = BillGenerator.new(bill_generator_params)
if #bill_generator.save?
# Redirect to somewhere with a flash?
else
# Re-render the form with a flash?
end
end
def bill_generator_params
params.require(:bill_generator).permit(:is_date, :to_date, :expiry_date)
# No extra garbage. No insecurity by letting all kinds of crud through!
end
...like a BillGenerator is any old object. Did it save? Great. It didn't, show the form again.
Now, my BillGenerator won't just be copy-and-paste. Your 'build_new_bills' probably will have some of that math you alluded to, which I'll leave to you.
Let me know what you think!
you can do it by using params.permit! as this allows any parameters to be passed. here's an example:
def create
...
#bill = Resident.all.each { |resident| resident.bills.create(any_params) }
end
private
def any_params
params.permit!
end
be careful with this of course, as you are opening this up to potential exploits.
I have this model:
class Event < Registration
serialize :fields, Hash
Activities=['Annonce', 'Butiksaktivitet', 'Salgskonkurrence']
CUSTOM_FIELDS=[:activity, :description, :date_from, :date_to, :budget_pieces, :budget_amount, :actual_pieces, :actual_amount]
attr_accessor *CUSTOM_FIELDS
before_save :gather_fields
after_find :distribute_fields
private
def gather_fields
self.fields={}
CUSTOM_FIELDS.each do |cf|
self.fields[cf]=eval("self.#{cf.to_s}")
end
end
def distribute_fields
unless self.fields.nil?
self.fields.each do |k,v|
eval("self.#{k.to_s}=v")
end
end
end
end
I have a feeling that this can be done shorter and more elegant. Does anyone have an idea?
Jacob
BTW. Can anyone tell me what the asterisk in front of CUSTOM_FIELDS does? I know what it does in a method definition (def foo(*args)) but not here...
Alright first off: never 10000000000.times { puts "ever" } use eval when you don't know what you're doing. It is the nuclear bomb of the Ruby world in the way that it can wreak devestation across a wide area, causing similar symptoms to radiation poisoning throughout your code. Just don't.
With that in mind:
class Event < Registration
serialize :fields, Hash
Activities = ['Annonce', 'Butiksaktivitet', 'Salgskonkurrence']
CUSTOM_FIELDS = [:activity,
:description,
:date_from,
:date_to,
:budget_pieces,
:budget_amount,
:actual_pieces,
:actual_amount] #1
attr_accessor *CUSTOM_FIELDS #2
before_save :gather_fields
after_find :distribute_fields
private
def gather_fields
CUSTOM_FIELDS.each do |cf|
self.fields[cf] = send(cf) #3
end
end
def distribute_fields
unless self.fields.empty?
self.fields.each do |k,v|
send("#{k.to_s}=", v) #3
end
end
end
end
Now for some notes:
By putting each custom field on its own line, you increase code readability. I don't want to have to scroll to the end of the line to read all the possible custom fields or to add my own.
The *CUSTOM_FIELDS passed into attr_accessor uses what is referred to as the "splat operator". By calling it in this way, the elements of the CUSTOM_FIELDS array will be passed as individual arguments to the attr_accessor method rather than as one (the array itself)
Finally, we use the send method to call methods we don't know the names of during programming, rather than the evil eval.
Other than that, I cannot find anything else to refactor about this code.
I agree with previous posters. In addition I would probably move the gather_fields and distribute_fields methods to the parent model to avoid having to repeat the code in every child model.
class Registration < ActiveRecord::Base
...
protected
def gather_fields(custom_fields)
custom_fields.each do |cf|
self.fields[cf] = send(cf)
end
end
def distribute_fields
unless self.fields.empty?
self.fields.each do |k,v|
send("#{k.to_s}=", v)
end
end
end
end
class Event < Registration
...
before_save :gather_fields
after_find :distribute_fields
private
def gather_fields(custom_fields = CUSTOM_FIELDS)
super
end
end
You can replace the two evals with send calls:
self.fields[cf] = self.send(cf.to_s)
self.send("#{k}=", v)
"#{}" does a to_s, so you don't need k.to_s
Activities, being a constant, should probably be ACTIVITIES.
For that asterisk *, check out this post: What is the splat/unary/asterisk operator useful for?
Activities=['Annonce', 'Butiksaktivitet', 'Salgskonkurrence']
can be written: ACTIVITIES = %w(Annonce, Butiksaktivitet, Salgskonkurrence).freeze since you are defining a constant.
def distribute_fields
unless self.fields.empty?
self.fields.each do |k,v|
send("#{k.to_s}=", v) #3
end
end
end
can be written as a one liner:
def distribute_fields
self.fields.each { |k,v| send("#{k.to_s}=", v) } unless self.fields.empty?
end
Ryan Bigg, gave a good answer.
I have a helper method which checks whether the collection of objects is empty? If not then it checks each one to make sure that the the existing event_id is not the #current_event.id.
Here is my crack at it:
def build_answers(question)
if question.answers.empty?
return question.answers.build
else
question.answers.each do |a|
if a.event_id != #current_event.id
return question.answers.build
end
end
end
end
Update: This helper method sets the form to build new children objects if the conditions pass. I've updated the example above. btw, it doesn't need to be a single line. I just wanted something cleaner than what I have above.
Without knowing what you're actually doing inside the blocks, it's difficult to give the best solution.
For the most part, all you could really do is select before executing the logic on the filtered collection, rather than testing the logic in the block.
e.g.
uncurrent_answers = questions.answers.select{|a| a.event_id != #current_event.id}
uncurrent_answers.each do |a|
#do whatever
end
IMHO it's a little bit neater, and perhaps more rubyish..
Well, I don't know why would you want to put conditions into a single line, but the else block could be rewritten into this:
question.answers.select {|answer| answer.event_id != #current_event.id }.each
{|ans| #.. logic with answer here }
I think you current method is responsible for too many things, my idea is to create a clase with a single responsibility of building answers. That would make your code more readable and also easy to test. A posible implementation would look something like :
def build_answers(question)
AnswerBuilder.build(question.answers, #current_event)
end
class AnswerBuilder
def initialize(answers, current_event)
#answers = answers
#current_event = current_event
end
def self.build(answers, current_event)
new(answers, current_event).build
end
def build
if answers.empty?
answers.build
else
create_allowed_answers
else
end
private
attr_reader :answers, :current_event
def create_allowed_answers
answers.each do |a|
if a.event_id != current_event.id
return answers.build
end
end
end
end