Is it possible to recreate RoR's collection_check_boxes functionality with inputs_for in Phoenix?
It's not exactly the same, but take a look at phoenix_mtm. It's a collection of functions that make it easier to work with many_to_many Ecto associations and render checkboxes for them.
Related
In our new project we decided to use hexagonal architecture. We decided to use repository pattern to gain more data access abstraction. We are using command bus pattern as service layer.
In our dashboard page we need a lot of data and because of that we should use 3 level many to many relations (user -> projects -> skills -> review) and also skills should be active(status=1).
The problem rises here, where should i put this?
$userRepository->getDashboardData($userId).
2.$userRepository->getUser($userId)->withProjects()->withActiveSkills()->withReviews();
3.$user = $userRepository->getById();
$projects = $projectRepository->getByUserId($user->id);
$skills = $skillRepository->getActiveSkillsByProjectsIds($projectIds);
In this case, I couldn't find the benefits of repository pattern except coding to interface which can be achived with model interfac.
I think solution 3 is prefect but it adds a lot of work.
You have to decide (for example) from an object-oriented perspective if a "User" returned is one that has a collection of skills within it. If so, your returned user will already have those objects.
In the case of using regular objects, try to avoid child entities unless it makes good sense. Like, for example.. The 'User' entity is responsible for ensuring that the child entities play by the business rules. Prefer to use a different repository to select the other types of entities based on whatever other criteria.
Talking about a "relationship" in this way makes me feel like you're using ActiveRecord because otherwise they'd just be child objects. The "relationship" exists in the relational database. It only creeps into your objects if you're mixing database record / object like with AR.
In the case of using ActiveRecord objects, you might consider having specific methods on the repository to load the correctly configured member objects. $members->allIncludingSkills() or something perhaps. This is because you have to solve for N+1 when returning multiple entities. Then, you need to use eager-loading for the result set and you don't want to use the same eager loading configuration for every request.. Therefore, you need a way to delineate configurations per request.. One way to do this is to call different methods on the repository for different requests.
However, for me.. I'd prefer not to have a bunch of objects with just.. infinite reach.. For example.. You can have a $member->posts[0]->author->posts[0]->author->posts[0]->author->posts[0].
I prefer to keep things as 'flat' as possible.
$member = $members->withId($id);
$posts = $posts->writtenBy($member->id);
Or something like that. (just typing off the top of my head).
Nobody likes tons of nested arrays and ActiveRecord can be abused to the point where its objects are essentially arrays with methods and the potential for infinite nesting. So, while it can be a convenient way to work with data. I would work to prevent abusing relationships as a concept and keep your structures as flat as possible.
It's not only very possible to code without ORM 'relationship' functionality.. It's often easier.. You can tell that this functionality adds a ton of trouble because of just how many features the ORM has to provide in order to try to mitigate the pain.
And really, what's the point? It just keeps you from having to use the ID of a specific Member to do the lookup? Maybe it's easier to loop over a ton of different things I guess?
Repositories are really only particularly useful in the ActiveRecord case if you want to be able to test your code in isolation. Otherwise, you can create scopes and whatnot using Laravel's built-in functionality to prevent the need for redundant (and consequently brittle) query logic everywhere.
It's also perfectly reasonable to create models that exist SPECIFICALLY for the UI. You can have more than one ActiveRecord model that uses the same database table, for example, that you use just for a specific user-interface use-case. Dashboard for example. If you have a new use-case.. You just create a new model.
This, to me.. Is core to designing systems. Asking ourselves.. Ok, when we have a new use-case what will we have to do? If the answer is, sure our architecture is such that we just do this and this and we don't really have to mess with the rest.. then great! Otherwise, the answer is probably more like.. I have no idea.. I guess modify everything and hope it works.
There's many ways to approach this stuff. But, I would propose to avoid using a lot of complex tooling in exchange for simpler approaches / solutions. Repository is a great way to abstract away data persistence to allow for testing in isolation. If you want to test in isolation, use it. But, I'm not sure that I'm sold much on how ORM relationships work with an object model.
For example, do we have some massive Member object that contains the following?
All comments ever left by that member
All skills the member has
All recommendations that the member has made
All friend invites the member has sent
All friends that the member has established
I don't like the idea of these massive objects that are designed to just be containers for absolutely everything. I prefer to break objects into bits that are specifically designed for use-cases.
But, I'm rambling. In short..
Don't abuse ORM relationship functionality.
It's better to have multiple small objects that are specifically designed for a use-case than a few large ones that do everything.
Just my 2 cents.
Question:
In a post-attr_accessible Rails 4 world, in what way do you recommend, if at all, annotating your ActiveRecord model class files to communicate its (database) attributes?
Further Thoughts
As part of a Rails 3 -> 4 upgrade, we are making a switch, and happily so, away from attr_accessible and to strong parameters in the controller. I understand and agree with the improvement in security via this switch. If you want to know more about this, the information is out there, and it's not hard to find.
But, I enjoyed, in my Rails 3 world, having those reminders of what attributes made up a class up there at the top of the model file. Especially since we're moving toward a world in which ActiveRecord classes are just DAOs, what else is the class but a collection of database attributes? I don't want to go to the schema.rb file just to remember them.
Am I thinking about this incorrectly? In a DAO world, should I be creating my ActiveRecord model class file and then never opening it again?
I know about the annotate_models gem and used it way back in the day. I was not a fan of having the attributes described in commented-out lines. (unreadable, hackish, fragile)
Thoughts? Opinions?
How about:
Person.column_names
If you are using an IDE or and editor that has a console feature this becomes an easy way to be reminded what attributes there are. I am no Ruby or Rails expert, still pretty new here, but I've been using Rails 4 almost exclusively and it just seems like you wouldn't need to see the attributes that often in the model. The params get whitelisted in the controller because that is where they will usually be used, no? If you don't want to use comments you could store an array of the attributes in the model:
my_attr = [:fname, :lname, :age, :height, :weight]
But is that really any more useful than a comment? Would there be a case of attributes that would have been in attr_accessible that wouldn't be in your whitelist in your controller? It would be trick if you put some code in a rake task that would run every time you ran
rake db:...
that would update the my_attr array in your model so you wouldn't have to remember to do it when you modified the model. I go into my models to add class methods and scopes, so I do see a value in it. But I work in RubyMine so I just click on the DB tab on the left side if I need to be reminded of columns that aren't in my whitelist.
I've recently 'discovered' Php-activerecord for use with CodeIgniter (using Sparks).
It is surely an easier way of building queries and getting data in and out of the database
than coding the models for yourself.
So my question is: is somebody using php-activerecord, instead of CodeIgniter's builtin activerecord, for a large project (ie. larger than the typical, tutorialish 'blog' example)?
What pitfals are there, when moving on from CodeIgniter models?
Thanks
ActiveRecord seems to be a well known pattern. In your particular case you should bare in mind, that you no longer need the CodeIgniter AR classes and methods.
Extending the php-activerecord models gives you many standarized methods dealing with your data. That's a good portion of code you would have to type in for yourself over and over again in each project (and beacause of the common CRUD actions, the code would be almost the same).
Great library!
I use it with my current CMS under development.
Once you get your head around relationships its a breeze. Activerecord\Model class is a joy to work with I find, however it would be nice to have a benchmarking wrapper. Really though if you have set your database architecture up right by indexing your foreign keys it should help.
Some nice features
callbacks
eager-loading
I have not personally used php-activerecord but it looks like a good ORM with good documentation. It looks like a nice time saver for larger projects, but for smaller ones i'd probably just stick with the standard activerecord class.
What is the best way to create logs & history in CakePHP. I was thinking if there is a way to create a Helper "that accesses" one table and then I call this helper inside of each controller that I want. However, I have read that this is not MVC standard. How would it be the correct way to do that?
I appreciate your time spent answering me that. Thanks!
thats what behaviors are for.
I use the LoggableBehavior from here:
https://github.com/alkemann/CakePHP-Assets/blob/master/models/behaviors/logable.php
works like a charm. they are then fetched and displayed in the view, if you want to.
Just implement a different log engine for that purpose. The CakeLog class actually works somewhat like an observer and the log engines like listeners.
Simply use CakeLog::write() and your custom engine that could load your log model in the constructor using ClassRegistry::init() and pass the incoming data from write() to the model.
The manual will help you with that. http://book.cakephp.org/2.0/en/core-libraries/logging.html#creating-and-configuring-log-streams
If I need two modes in my application what design pattern would I use so I can prevent ugly conditional code? App is currently MVC, but I don't want conditional code in my controllers and don't want two controllers for each view unless I have to.
Any suggestions?
A different subclass for each implementation, with shared functionality either in a common superclass or using the Template Method pattern.
Perhaps the State Pattern?
Abstract Factory, or Proxy. Your controller would contain some kind of Factory or Proxy instance that is used to retrieve a "mode" and act on it accordingly.
It is difficult to say for sure without more information, but I would suggest the strategy pattern. You could use the same controller and just swap out the strategy object to produce the desired change in behavior.
Here is an article you may find useful:
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-04-2002/jw-0426-designpatterns.html
take a look at JSR-168, java portlet and its reference implementation, it should be similar to what you are trying to achieve.
The appropriate place for such a decision is the controller of MVC. I would recommend you write it there first. If it really is repetitive, it may be straightforward to figure out how to clean it up: you can move the conditional logic into a base class, or depending on the language, may be able to handle it with some sort of filter. You may also be able to create some "factory" for the views, which understands the "mode" of your application. Architecturally, though, all this is in the controller.
You are right to not want it in the view. This would be pretty messy. You probably want two versions of the views, one for "view" and one for "edit".
In the end, this is what controllers are for. Good luck!
In CafeTownsend demo made with PureMVC there is a similar situation where there are two different views and two separate Mediators. You absolute don't need conditional code for that. I don't know what technology and programming language you are using, but in Flex it will be a ViewStack with the ListView and EditView as children:
Corresponding mediator is registered by demand when the view is created. You can check other implementations using previous link.