I have two models, which associate with each other through a has_and_belongs_to_many relationship.
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :stages, association_foreign_key: :stage_number
end
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :bands
end
Assume both tables have an id field, and that stage has a stage_name field.
They're related to each other through a table called bands_stages, with a schema that looks similar to this:
create_table :bands_stages, id: false do |t|
t.integer :band_id
t.integer :stage_number
end
My intention is to use Rails Admin to allow us to modify certain fields on the Stage, but every time that runs, I get an SQL error doing so:
column stages.id does not exist
It seems that Rails Admin is picking the wrong column by default to join on. How would I inform Rails Admin that I want it to join on a column that actually exists in my join table?
Note that I can't actually make use of the ID in the stages table. The intention is that only ten stages exist at any given time, denoted by their stage number, but every band can visit each stage. Since an ID would automatically increment, it seems to be safer and more explicit to its intent to leverage the more concrete :stage_number field instead.
I'm sure that it's not a problem of rails admin but habtm association.
To make habtm use the right column in sql primary key must be specified for stage model and foreign key for association.
And it is the only way to make it works right.
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = "stage_number"
has_and_belongs_to_many :bands, foreign_key: :stage_number
end
But I think the best way is to use joint model and has_many/belongs_to because for has_many/belongs_to it's possible to set any column to be used as primary key via :primary_key option.
class BandStageLink < ActiveRecord::Base
self.table_name = "bands_stages"
belongs_to :band
belongs_to :stage, foreign_key: :stage_number, primary_key: :stage_number
end
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :band_stage_links
has_many :stages, through: :band_stage_links, foreign_key: :stage_number
end
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :band_stage_links, primary_key: :stage_number, foreign_key: :stage_number
has_many :bands, through: :band_stage_links
end
Update: Note that in this case there is still no need to specify any primary keys for stage table. For instance my migration is:
class CreateStageBandTables < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :bands_stages, id: false do |t|
t.integer :band_id
t.integer :stage_number
end
create_table :bands do |t|
t.string :name
end
create_table :stages, id: false do |t|
t.integer :stage_number
t.string :name
end
end
end
I tested both cases for rails 4.2.5 and everything works just fine.
Edit - I did mis-understand the primary key bit, I think the desire was to tell Rails to use different attribute as PK, which should be less problematic than re-purposing the auto-increment-by-default PK ID. In that case, the Stage model should include self.primary_key = "stage_number", and the rest of the details at the bottom of this answer relating to HABTM alongside that. Of course has-many-through would still be my preferred solution here.
I think there's a bigger problem with the models and approach, than Rails Admin.
If I understand what you're trying to do, then you'd also need to turn off auto-increment for the primary key in stages table, to hold arbitrary numbers (representing stage numbers) as primary key IDs. It could end badly very quickly, so I'd advise against it.
If the data is genuinely static (10 stages ever), you could even keep it as a constant in the Band model and scrap Stage completely (unless there's more there), e.g.
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
POSSIBLE_STAGES = [1, 2, ...]
validates :stage, inclusion: { in: POSSIBLE_STAGES, message: "%{value} is not a stage we know of!" }
end
For a table-based approach, I would suggest has-many-through, it'll save you a lot of pain in the future (even if you don't need additional attributes on the join table, things like nested forms are a little easier to work with than in HABTM). Something like this:
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :events
has_many :stages, through :events
# band details go into this model
end
class Event < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :band
belongs_to :stage
# you could later add attributes here, such as date/time of event, used_capacity, attendee rating, and
# even validations such as no more than X bands on any given stage at the same time etc.
end
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :events
has_many :bands, through :events
# stage number/details go into this model
end
The migration for that could look something like this:
create_table :bands do |t|
t.string :bandname
# whatever else
end
create_table :events do |t|
t.belongs_to :band
t.belongs_to :stage
# you could add attributes here as well, e.g. t.integer :used_capacity
end
create_table :stages do |t|
t.integer :number
t.integer :total_capacity
# whatever else
end
As you can see primary key IDs are not touched here at all, and I would always avoid storing business data in Rails' and databases' plumbing of any sort (which is what I consider IDs to be, they're there to ensure relation/integrity of the data in a relational database, as well as nice and consistent mapping to ActiveRecord - all business data should be beside that, in actual attributes, not plumbing used to connect models).
If you still want HABTM and re-purposing of primary ID, then I think Stage should include a foreign_key statement to "advertise" itself to the bands_stages join table as having a custom key name (in bands_stages only), while keeping the association_foreign_key on the Band end to show what you want to query in the join table to reach the other side. The stages table would still utilise id though as its primary key, you'd just want to turn off auto-increment with something like t.integer :id, :options => 'PRIMARY KEY' (might be dependent on the database flavour - and again, I would advise against this).
Your models would look like this:
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :stages, association_foreign_key: "stage_number"
end
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :bands, foreign_key: "stage_number"
end
The connection between bands and bands_stages would be bands.id = bands_stages.band_id, for which many bands_stages.stage_number would be found, and each would be connected to stage via bands_stages.stage_number = stages.id (where stages.id has been re-purposed to represent business data at a likely future peril).
Change the association_foreign_key value to be a string instead of symbol.
class Band < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :stages, association_foreign_key: 'stage_number'
end
class Stage < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :bands, foreign_key: 'stage_number'
end
Related
I'm new in Ruby on Rails. I don't understand how rails behave using foreign Key, I've researched it for some days but I didn't get the answer.
Simple sample:
I created two tables:
class CreatePosts < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :posts do |t|
t.string :title
t.text :content
t.timestamps null: false
end
end
end
class CreateComments < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :comments do |t|
t.string :author
t.text :content
t.references :post, index: true, foreign_key: true
t.timestamps null: false
end
end
end
My models are:
class Post < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :comments
end
class Comments < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :post
end
My doubt is: As I have a Foreign Key in my table COMMENTS (.references :post, index: true, foreign_key: true) I guess that I wouldn't be able to destroy any post which has any COMMENTS associated to them, isn't it ?
I did as above but I am still able to destroy the posts, even when I have the comments associated. How can I treat it? What am I doing wrong?
Cheers
I'd refine your migrations to use the :on_delete options on your foreign keys. It can take one of those values : :nullify, :cascade, :restrict
From what I understand, you need to set this value to :restrict on your post_id column in your comments table, so that posts with associated comments can't be deleted.
Update:
Or, you could also directly set it on the association in your Post model:
has_many :comment, dependent: :restrict_With_error
Please take a look at:
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/ConnectionAdapters/SchemaStatements.html#method-i-add_foreign_key
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#method-i-has_many -> See the Options: Section
From what i understand, you dont want to destroy a post if there are associated comments?
Why not put a if statement encapsulating the delete button for a post
So something like:
psudo code
if #post.comments exists
cant delete post
else
delete post
end
How would you set up an activerecord/datamapper association for the following scenario:
A user creates a "bookshelf" which has many books(a book object just has an isbn that is used to query an api, and has_many review objects associated with it). Let's say Jack creates a "bookshelf" with a book object. Then, lets say that Jill creates a "bookshelf" with the same book object(it has the same id and the same reviews). The book object has the following code as of now:
class Book < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :reviews
end
Then, when you view the page for a book (you click the link to it from the "bookshelf" created by Jack) you should see the same book object when you clicked the link to it from Jill's "bookshelf" (e.g. both "bookshelves" have a link to /books/23 because they have the same book object).
I have not been able to figure this out with the has_many association because that requires me to make a new book each time a user adds a book to their "bookshelf." I have trouble understanding the has_and_belongs_to_many relationship, is that what should be used here? I was not able to find any similar questions on SO, so any help is greatly appreciated.
I am using Rails 4 with Ruby 2.1.
Here is a drawing of what I would like to accomplish:
Drawing
Yes, you would have to define many-to-many relationship between a Bookshelf and a Book. There are two ways to achieve this in Rails:
Option 1) Use has_and_belongs_to_many
See guide
According to official documentation has_and_belongs_to_many association:
Specifies a many-to-many relationship with another class. This associates two classes via an intermediate join table. Unless the join table is explicitly specified as an option, it is guessed using the lexical order of the class names. So a join between Developer and Project will give the default join table name of “developers_projects” because “D” precedes “P” alphabetically.
So, your classes should look like this:
class Bookshelf < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :books
end
class Book < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :bookshelves
has_many :reviews
end
Add a join table generation to your migrations:
class CreateBooksBookshelvesJoinTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :books_bookshelves, id: false do |t|
t.belongs_to :book, index: true
t.belongs_to :bookshelf, index: true
end
end
end
This will create a books_bookshelves table in your database. The table will have no primary key. There would be two foreign keys to your models Book and Bookshelf.
So, if you call self.books in the context of an user's bookshelf, you will get a list of books in the bookshelf. Vice versa, calling self.bookshelves in the context of a book will return a set of bookshelves the book belongs to.
The problem with this approach is that every time you add a new book to the bookshelf a new record is created in the database. If you are okay with that, there is no easier option than using has_and_belongs_to_many association. Otherwise, I recommend you to go with the Option #2.
Option 2) Use has_many :through
Another option is to use has_many, :through association (see guide). You would have to define one more model to do that, but it might come handy in some use cases (see below for an example).
Your classes should look like this:
class Bookshelf < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :books, through: :books_bookshelves
has_many :books_bookshelves
end
class Book < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :bookshelves, through: :books_bookshelves
has_many :books_bookshelves
has_many :reviews
end
class BooksBookshelf < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :book
belongs_to :bookshelf
end
Probably the best thing about using has_many :through association is that it allows you to add custom columns to the join table (e.g. add column count to keep track how many books of the same type are there in the bookshelf).
The migration would look pretty much the same as the one we used in Option 1, except for the fact we are adding an unique constraint on the foreign keys (please note that adding the constraint is optional):
class CreateBooksBookshelvesJoinTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :books_bookshelves, id: false do |t|
t.belongs_to :book, index: true
t.belongs_to :bookshelf, index: true
# add your custom columns here
end
add_index :books_bookshelves, [:book_id, :bookshelf_id], unique: true # to make sure you won't create duplicate records
end
end
By going with this approach, adding a new would be a bit more complicated as you would have to make sure you are not inserting duplicate records in the join table. (However, you may remove the unique constraint from the migration, to achieve exactly the same kind of behavior as you would get with has_and_belongs_to_many.)
I am designing a database of woodwind instrument sounds, and would like to create a table that joins pairs of sounds that a performer can combine into, for example, a trill. Such relations are transitive: if sound A has a 'Sound Relation' with sound B, then sound B has that same 'Sound Relation' with sound A.
I am familiar with join tables, but I've never seen them used to join 'like' objects, only to join 'unlike' objects, such as tags and posts, so I'm wary of going that direction.
I realize the example below looks extremely dubious, but it gives an idea of what I'm after. What is a better way of doing it? (Using ActiveRecord syntax)
Models
class Sound < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :linked_sounds, through: :sound_relations, class_name: "Sound", foreign_key: ???
end
class Sound_Relation < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :sounds
end
Migration
class CreateSoundRelations < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :sound_relations do |t|
t.integer first_sound_id # This cannot possibly be right.
t.integer second_sound_id # Surely the transitivity of the
# relationship should be more evident?
end
end
end
You might try something like:
class Set < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :sound_sets
has_many :sounds, :through => :sound_sets
end
class SoundSet < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :sound
belongs_to :set
end
class Sound < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :sound_sets
has_many :sets , :through => :sound_sets
has_many :set_sound_sets, :through => :sets , :source => :sound_sets
has_many :set_sounds , :through => :set_sound_sets, :source => :sound
end
So, no more "sound_1" and "sound_2" ... they are both just sounds. For every sound you can also use the set_sounds method to retrieve all of the sounds associated with it.
This would also allow more than two sounds in a relation, and you might like to put a "type" on the sets model.
Edit: If you look at the query generated, you'll find that sound_sets is mentioned in there twice, once with a different alias. The key to eliminating "self" joins is to include a clause in the association along the lines of:
has_many :set_sounds ,
{where("sound_sets.sound_id != set_sound_sets_sound_set_sounds.sound_id")},
:through => :set_sound_sets,
:source => :sound
... where "sound_set_sounds" is the table alias. If you can post the query in the comments I can update this with the actual alias.
I have orders and items table. I also have a third table called orders_items. Which I learned on creating from the following link (2nd graph) http://www.tutorialspoint.com/ruby-on-rails/rails-models.htm
models/order.rb
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :items, through: :item_order
end
models/item.rb
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :orders, through: :item_order
end
[orders_items] table has the following:
integer :order_id
integer :item_id
Do I have to create a models/order_item.rb file to add:
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :item
If so what is the correct naming format that it should be?
Would the name for the model file [order_item.rb] correct to distinguish which table it refers to?
models/order_item.rb ??
class OrdersItem ??? < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
belongs_to :item
end
From the API
The join table should not have a primary key or a model associated
with it. You must manually generate the join table with a migration
such as this
class CreateDevelopersProjectsJoinTable < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :developers_projects, id: false do |t|
t.integer :developer_id
t.integer :project_id
end
end
end
Specifies a many-to-many relationship with another class. This
associates two classes via an intermediate join table. Unless the join
table is explicitly specified as an option, it is guessed using the
lexical order of the class names. So a join between Developer and
Project will give the default join table name of “developers_projects”
because “D” precedes “P” alphabetically
In your case the join table name should be items_orders.
Your model must be named OrderItem. And you don't need belongs_to in this class. The file name (order_item.rb) is correct.
I think you need this relationship to fulfill your needs, except if orders is an item too
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items
end
and
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
end
I have a data structure in which Topics have subtopics, which again have subtopics, continuing down from the original Topic about six levels. Each of these topics has multiple subtopics.
I'm looking for a way to traverse this data and bring back data affiliated from each of the subtopics... as if pulling the data I want "downstream".
For example Given a topic structure:
Harry_Potter > Characters > Slitherin_House.videos
(Assuming that slitherin house has subtopics for each of the members, Malfoy, Crabbe, etc. ) I want the videos for each of the members to appear in the video lists for Slitherin_House, Characters, and Harry_Potter (each of the ancestors).
I've been looking around and stumbled across Ancestry and Acts As Tree and read through the code and tried my hand at using them, but they seem more oriented around the ancestor side of things, as opposed to accessing and pulling data from the children.
I also have tried my hand at using the associations
has_many :through, and has_and_belongs_to_many
but have been unsuccessful in my attempts to create a working traversal system. And can't seem to complete wrap my head around how to do this.
Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions on what to do given such a predicament? Or know of gems which provide for any such functionality?
Relationship class & model: (as it should flow like a stream)
class CreateStreams < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table :streams do |t|
t.integer :downstream_id
t.integer :upstream_id
t.timestamps
end
add_index :streams, :downstream_id
add_index :streams, :upstream_id
add_index :streams, [:downstream_id, :upstream_id], unique: true
end
end
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: streams
#
# id :integer not null, primary key
# downstream_id :integer
# upstream_id :integer
# created_at :datetime not null
# updated_at :datetime not null
#
class Stream < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :downstream_id
belongs_to :subsidiary, class_name: "Topic"
belongs_to :tributary, class_name: "Topic"
validates :downstream_id, presence: true
validates :upstream_id, presence: true
end
Topic Model
# == Schema Information
#
# Table name: topics
#
# id :integer not null, primary key
# name :string(255)
# created_at :datetime not null
# updated_at :datetime not null
# slug :string(255)
# wiki :string(255)
# summary :string(255)
class Topic < ActiveRecord::Base
extend FriendlyId
attr_accessible :name, :wiki, :summary
has_many :streams, foreign_key: "downstream_id", dependent: :destroy
has_many :tributaries, through: :streams, source: :tributary
has_many :reverse_streams, foreign_key: "upstream_id",
class_name: "Stream",
dependent: :destroy
has_many :subsidiaries, :through => :reverse_streams, source: :subsidiary
friendly_id :name, use: :slugged
validates :name, presence: true, length: { maximum: 50 },
uniqueness: { case_sensitive: false }
def downstream?(other_topic)
streams.find_by_downstream_id(other_topic.id)
end
def flow!(other_topic)
streams.create!(downstream_id: other_topic.id)
end
def dam!(other_topic)
streams.find_by_downstream_id(other_topic.id).destroy
end
end
Note: I also want to be able to assign a subtopic, multiple parents. So that characters could potentially get put underneath of "Actors" as well for example.
if you want to set this up in a simple way i'd go for a recursive relation. This means a topic can belong to another topic (nested)
The database model of the topic would look like:
Topic
id
topic_id
title
the model would then be:
class Topic < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :topic
has_many :topics
end
Now if you have a topic. you can access its parents by doing .topic and its childs with .topics. A Topic with no parent is a toplevel one and a Topic with no childs is a end node.