I am running Ruby 2.1 and Mongoid 5.0 (no Rails).
I want to track on a before_save callback whether or not an embedded field has changed.
I can use the document.attribute_changed? or document.changed methods to check normal fields, but somehow these don't work on relations (embed_one, has_one, etc).
Is there a way of detecting these changes before saving the document?
My model is something like this
class Company
include Mongoid::Document
include Mongoid::Attributes::Dynamic
field :name, type: String
#...
embeds_one :address, class_name: 'Address', inverse_of: :address
#...
before_save :activate_flags
def activate_flags
if self.changes.include? 'address'
#self.changes never includes "address"
end
if self.address_changed?
#This throws an exception
end
end
One example of how I save my document is:
#...
company.address = AddressUtilities.parse address
company.save
#After this, the callback is triggered, but self.changes is empty...
#...
I have read the documentation and Google the hell out of it, but I can't find a solution?
I have found this gem, but it's old and doesn't work with the newer versions of Mongoid. I want to check if there is another way of doing it before considering on trying to fix/pull request the gem...
Adding these two methods to your Model and calling get_embedded_document_changes should provide you an hash with the changes to all its embedded documents:
def get_embedded_document_changes
data = {}
relations.each do |name, relation|
next unless [:embeds_one, :embeds_many].include? relation.macro.to_sym
# only if changes are present
child = send(name.to_sym)
next unless child
next if child.previous_changes.empty?
child_data = get_previous_changes_for_model(child)
data[name] = child_data
end
data
end
def get_previous_changes_for_model(model)
data = {}
model.previous_changes.each do |key, change|
data[key] = {:from => change[0], :to => change[1]}
end
data
end
[ source: https://gist.github.com/derickbailey/1049304 ]
Related
I'm sending serialized data to a class which need to access a Mongoid document which may or may not be embedded.
In case of embedded document, I'm accepting a variable number of arguments which I reduce to get the embedded document.
The code is pretty simple:
def perform(object, *arguments)
#opts = arguments.extract_options!
#object = arguments.reduce(object){|object, args| object.public_send(*args)}
# [...]
I used public_send because AFAIK I only need to call public methods.
However, when I try to access an embedded document I have some really strange result where #object is an enumerator.
After some debugging, this is what I found that for any root document object and an embedded collection items, I have:
object.items.public_send(:find)
# => #<Enumerator: ...>
object.items.send(:find) # or __send__
# => nil
The method called is not the same at all when I call public_send or send!
How is it even possible?
Is it normal? Is that a bug?
public_send seems to invoke the find method of Array (Enumerable) but send (or __send__) invokes the find method of Mongoid
Edit: simple reproductible case:
require 'mongoid'
class User
include Mongoid::Document
field :name, type: String
embeds_many :groups
end
class Group
include Mongoid::Document
field :name, type: String
embedded_in :user
end
Mongoid.load_configuration({
sessions: {
default: {
database: 'send_find',
hosts: [
'localhost:27017'
]
}
}
})
user = User.create(name: 'john')
user.groups.create(name: 'g1')
user.groups.create(name: 'g2')
puts "public_send :find"
puts user.groups.public_send(:find).inspect
# => #<Enumerator: [#<Group _id: 5530dea57735334b69010000, name: "g1">, #<Group _id: 5530dea57735334b69020000, name: "g2">]:find>
puts "send :find"
puts user.groups.send(:find).inspect
# => nil
puts "__send__ :find"
puts user.groups.__send__(:find).inspect
# => nil
Okay, after a few hours of debugging, I found that it is actually a bug in Mongoid.
The relation is not an array but a proxy around the array, which delegates most methods to the array.
As public_send was also delegated but not send and __send__, the behavior was not the same.
For more information, see my pull request and the associated commit.
In rails 4.0.2, I am trying to use a search plugin called dusen. Using this, I can search same model's values but I am not able to search other(associated) model values. How can I achieve this for single association(has_one / belongs_to) & multi association(has_many) model values?
Reference link:
https://github.com/makandra/dusen
Gem which I am using is dusen (0.4.10)
In controller,
#query = params[:query] || ""
Contact.search(#query)
In model,
belongs_to :city, :class_name=>"City"
search_syntax do
search_by :text do |scope, phrases|
columns = [:name, :contact_number, :email]
scope.where_like(columns => phrases)
end
end
Here, It will search only :name, :contact_number, :email fields, if i try to add below piece of code then it will show an error like undefined method 'search_text' for #<Dusen::Description:0xb438a248>
search_text do
[city.name]
end
Please suggest a solution for this issue.
Assuming your model name is 'User', you'd set it up as follows:
# User.rb
belongs_to :city, :class_name=>"City"
search_syntax do
search_by :text do |scope, phrases|
# namespaced fields to search by.
columns = ["users.name", "users.contact_number", "users.email", "cities.name"]
# specify association to City in scope.
scope.joins(:city).where_like(columns => phrases)
end
end
I hope this helps!
Say I am keeping track of email correspondances. An enquiry (from a customer) or a reply (from a supporter) is embedded in the order the two parties are corresponding about. They share the exact same logic when put into the database.
My problem is that even though I use the same logic, the object classes are different, the model fields I need to call are different, and the method names are different as well.
How do I put methods and objects references in before I actually have to use them? Does a "string_to_method" method exists or something like that?
Sample code with commentaries:
class Email
include Mongoid::Document
field :from, type: String
field :to, type: String
field :subject, type: String
belongs_to :order, :inverse_of => :emails
def start
email = Email.create!(:from => "sender#example.com", :to => "recipient#example.com", :subject => "Hello")
from_or_to = from # This represents the database field from where I later on will fetch the customers email address. It is either from or to.
enquiries_or_replies = enquiries # This represents a method that should later be called. It is either enquiries or replies.
self.test_if_enquiry_or_reply(from_or_to, enquiries_or_replies)
end
def test_if_enquiry_or_reply(from_or_to, enquiries_or_replies)
order = Order.add_enquiry_or_reply(self, from_or_to, enquiries_or_replies)
self.order = order
self.save
end
end
class Order
include Mongoid::Document
field :email_address, type: String
has_many :emails, :inverse_of => :order
embeds_many :enquiries, :inverse_of => :order
embeds_many :replies, :inverse_of => :order
def self.add_enquiry_or_reply(email, from_or_to, enquiries_or_replies)
order = Order.where(:email_address => email.from_or_to).first # from_or_to could either be from or to.
order.enquiries_or_replies.create!(subject: email.subject) # enquiries_or_replies could either be enquiries or replies.
order
end
end
Judging by the question and the code sample, it sounds like you are mixing concerns too much. My first suggestion would be to re-evaluate your method names and object structure. Ambiguous names like test_if_thing1_or_thing2 and from_or_to (it should just be one thing) will make it very hard for others, and your future self, to understand the code laster.
However, without diverging into a debate on separation of concerns, you can change the methods you call by using public_send (or the private aware send). So you can do
order.public_send(:replies).create!
order.public_send(:enquiries).create!
string to method does exist, it's called eval
so, you could do
method_name = "name"
eval(method_name) #calls the name method
having this code block of an example rails model class:
class Block < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :bricks, :autosave => true
def crunch
bricks.each do |brick|
if brick.some_condition?
brick.name = 'New data'
brick.save # why do I have to call this?
end
end
end
end
class Brick < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :block, :autosave => true
end
I found that the only way to make sure the changes within the associated objects get saved for me, was to call brick.save manually. Even thought I use :autosave => true
Why?
Probably the autosave option has a misleading name. By the way, it's the expected behaviour. The option is meant for association. So if you modify an object in a relation and save the other object then ActiveRecord saves the modified objects. So, in your case, you could change your code to:
def crunch
bricks.each do |brick|
if brick.some_condition?
brick.name = 'New data'
end
end
save # saving the father with autosave should save the children
end
You could use any of the helper methods available: update_attribute, update_attributes, update_column...
More info: Rails: update_attribute vs update_attributes
When using accepts_nested_attributes_for, I got stuck when having a validation which required the original to be present. The code will help clear up that sentence.
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :bar
accepts_nested_attributes :bar
end
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
#property name: string
belongs_to :foo
validates_presence_of :foo #trouble line!
end
#now when you do
foo = Foo.create! :bar_attributes => {:name => 'steve'}
#you get an error because the bar validation failed
I would like to write a validation that goes something like...
class Bar < ActiveRecord::Base
validates_presence_of :foo, :unless => :being_built_by_foo?
end
I am currently using rails3.beta4
Thank you
Alas I don't have an answer to this post, but the I came up with another way so I didn't need the validation.
Since bar should never be without a foo then any request to create a bar without a foo_id is an error. In the real example a foo is a project, and bar is a bid. It is a nested resource, but I wanted to give access to json apps to be able to query the info from the /bids location so the router looked like.
resources :bids
resources :projects do
resources: bids
end
and then I just had to make sure all html access used project_bids_path or form_for [:project,#bid] etc. This next part is largely untested but so far the desired behavior is there. I got the idea from Yehuda's post on generic actions http://yehudakatz.com/2009/12/20/generic-actions-in-rails-3/
#I'm sure there is a better way then map.connect
map.connect "projects/invalid_id", :controller => "projects", :action => "invalid_id"
resources :projects
resources :bids
end
#couple of changes from Yehuda
def redirect(*args, &block)
options = args.last.is_a?(Hash) ? args.pop : {}
path = args.shift || block
path_proc = path.is_a?(Proc) ? path : proc {|params| path % params }
status = options[:status] || 301
lambda do |env|
req = Rack::Request.new(env)
#Get both the query paramaters and url paramaters
params = env["action_dispatch.request.path_parameters"].merge req.params
url = path_proc.call(params.stringify_keys)
#Doesn't add the port back in!
#url = req.scheme + '://' + req.host + params
#content-type might be a bad idea, need to look into what happens for different requests
[status, {'Location' => url, 'Content-Type' => env['HTTP_ACCEPT'].split(',').first}, ['Moved Permanently']]
end
end
def bid_path
redirect do |params|
if params['project_id']
"/projects/#{params['project_id']}/bids/#{params['id']}"
else
'/projects/invalid_id'
end
end
end
match "bids", :to => bid_path
match "bids/:id", :to => bid_path
however, after doing all of this I most definitely don't think it worth it. I think nested_attributes breaks things and can be improved if that validation doesn't work, but after looking through the code for a little while I'm not sure exactly how to fix it or if it's worth it.
first of all, when using nested_attributes, you'll get the presence of the container. in the example: when you save Foo and there's also a nested form for Bar, then Bar is built by Foo.
I think there's no need to make this kind of validation if you're sure to use Bar only in contexts with Foo.
btw, try to write validation as follow (new preferred syntax for Rails3):
validates :foo, :presence => true
hope this helps,
a.