I'm trying to mimic ActiveRecord with a simple set of ruby objects for running raw sql queries. Below is a spike I've been experimenting with:
module Runable
def run
return self::Results.new
end
end
module Query
class Results
def initialize
#results = Object.find_by_sql()
end
def to_a
#code
end
end
end
module Scored
extend Runable
include Query
QUERY = 'a raw sql query string'
end
module Unseen
extend Runable
include Query
QUERY = 'a different raw sql query string'
end
What I want to be able to do is create simple Modules for each type of raw sql query I'm going to run, put them into a file like Scored or Unseen above and call .run on them to get back a results object. So like this:
Scored.run #=> #<Scored::Results:0x0000000000>
Unseen.run #=> #<Unseen::Results:0x0000000000>
but instead I get this...
Scored.run #=> #<Query::Results:0x0000000000>
Unseen.run #=> #<Query::Results:0x0000000000>
I've been doing ruby and rails for over a year but I'm just beginning to get into more advanced ruby usage. This is my first big step into using modules and mixins.
The issue, as far as I can tell, is that module class methods have self scoped to the module they're defined in. So I get Query::Results because the initialize method for Results is defined in the Query module. That make sense?
Thank you for the help!
Update 5/30 16:45
Basically, I want to wrap a handful of raw SQL statements into modules like this:
module ScoredUsers
include Queryable
QUERY="SELECT * FROM users ..."
end
and interact with the queries like this:
r = ScoredUsers.run #=> ScoredUsers::Results
r.ids
r.load_objects
REDIS.zadd user:5:cache, r.to_a
I want to keep everything in modules and classes, the ruby way (I think?) so when I want to create a new query object I can simple use the boilerplate module like Scored above.
The reason why you are getting such a results is that class Results is created just once. When the module is included new constant is created within including class (Scored::Results), but it is pointing to same memory space as constant Query::Results.
What you need is that you have to create a new class for each class this module is being included in. This is perfect opportunity to use included method:
module Query
def self.included(mod)
results = Class.new do
def initialize
#results = Object.find_by_sql()
end
def to_a
#code
end
end
mod.const_set('Results', results)
end
end
Now of course we are left with the question - do we really need to do this? This depends on how you are planning to use those classes.
Related
I have a Volt Framework Task that checks and stores information on a directory, e.g.
class DirectoryHelperTask < Volt::Task
def list_contents()
contents = []
Dir.glob("/path/to/files").each do |f|
contents << f
end
return contents
end
end
I would like to call this from a different task, e.g.
class DirectoryRearrangerTask < Volt::Task
dir_contents = DirectoryHelperTask.list_contents()
end
The code above (DirectoryRearranger) throws an error, as does a promise call
DirectoryHelperTask.list_contents().then do |r|
dir_conents = r
end.fail do |e|
puts "Error: #{e}"
end
Could not find a way to call a task from another task in the Volt Framework documentation.
Thanks a lot!
From what I gather, tasks are meant to be run on the server side and then called on the client side, hence the use of the promise object. The promise object comes from OpalRb, so trying to call it from MRI won't work. If you have a "task" that will only be used on the server side, then it doesn't really fit with Volt's concept of a task.
Your first approach to the problem actually does work, except that DirectoryRearrangerTask can't inherit from Volt::Task.
directory_helper_task.rb
require_relative "directory_rearranger_task"
class DirectoryHelperTask < Volt::Task
def list_contents
contents = []
Dir.glob("*").each do |file|
contents << file
end
DirectoryRearrangerTask.rearrange(contents)
contents
end
end
directory_rearranger_task.rb
class DirectoryRearrangerTask
def self.rearrange(contents)
contents.reverse!
end
end
Here is a GitHub repo with my solution to this problem.
You can call tasks from the client or server, but keep in mind that you call instance methods on the class. (So they get treated like singletons) And all methods return a Promise. I think your issue here is that your doing dir_contents = DirectoryHelperTask.list_contents() inside of the class. While you could do this in ruby, I'm not sure its what you want.
Also, where you do dir_contents = r, unless dir_contents was defined before the block, its going to get defined just in the block.
As part of an online Ruby tutorial, I must create a text-based game. One requirement is that I use require to pull in another file. I've done that as well as include the module that holds a method. However, I cannot produce the result I want. Here's my file with the module:
module Inventory
def Inventory.inventory(item)
items = Array.new
if item == "show"
items.inspect
else
items << item
end
end
end
I want the parameter (item) to be added to the array items as a string that can be inspected when I pass the "show" argument to it.
So for example, I want to add a 'bat' to the inventory so I call Inventory.inventory("bat"). Later I'd like to add other things. But when I call Inventory.inventory("show") it doesn't show anything.
I've spent days looking through many other tutorials and hundreds of questions here but still can't get it work. I'm probably not understanding something really fundamental so please be gracious to me as I'm still learning.
Is it the way I'm adding to an array? The way I'm trying to get it to show? Or do I not understand how to use methods and arguments?
you can Dylan's answer if you want to go with instance approach or you can use class variables.
The problem with your code is that you initialize items local variable every time you call inventory.
Here is a version that will persist items in a class variable:
module Inventory
def Inventory.inventory(item)
##items ||= Array.new
if item == "show"
##items.inspect
else
##items << item
end
end
end
Inventory.inventory 1
Inventory.inventory 2
p Inventory.inventory 'show'
this is producing
"[1, 2]"
This would make a lot more sense as a class. This way, you can store the items in an instance variable that will persist during multiple calls to add, show, etc. You can of course put this class into a separate file and still include it.
class Inventory
def initialize
#items = []
end
def add(item)
#items << item
end
def show
#items.inspect
end
end
# To use the class:
inventory = Inventory.new
inventory.add('bat')
inventory.show
# => ["bat"]
The issue is that your items array is being recreated every time this method is called, so there is no persistence between method calls for what is passed into the array. Dylan Markow's answer shows how you can use instance variables to persist values between method calls.
I'm working on a project to recreate some of the functionality of ActiveRecord. Here's the portion that isn't working
module Associations
def belongs_to(name, params)
self.class.send(:define_method, :other_class) do |name, params|
(params[:class_name] || name.camelize).constantize
end
self.class.send(:define_method, :other_table_name) do |other_class|
other_class.table_name
end
.
.
.
o_c = other_class(name, params)
#puts this and other (working) values in a query
query = <<-SQL
...
SQL
#sends it off with db.execute(query)...
I'm building towards this testing file:
require 'all_files' #holds SQLClass & others
pets_db_file_name = File.expand_path(File.join(File.dirname(__FILE__), "pets.db"))
DBConnection.open(pets_db_file_name)
#class Person
#end
class Pet < SQLClass
set_table_name("pets")
set_attrs(:id, :name, :owner_id)
belongs_to :person, :class_name => "Person", :primary_key => :id, :foreign_key => :owner_id
end
class Person < SQLClass
set_table_name("people")
set_attrs(:id, :name)
has_many :pets, :foreign_key => :owner_id
end
.
.
.
Without any changes I received
.../active_support/inflector/methods.rb:230:in `block in constantize': uninitialized constant Person (NameError)
Just to make sure that it was an issue with the order of loading the classes in the file I began the file with the empty Person class, which, as predicted gave me
undefined method `table_name' for Person:Class (NoMethodError)
Since this is a learning project I don't want to change the test to make my code work (open all the classes, set all the tables/attributes then reopen them them for belongs_to. But, I'm stuck on how else to proceed.)
EDIT SQLClass:
class SQLClass < AssignmentClass
extend SearchMod
extend Associations
def self.set_table_name(table_name)
#table_name = table_name
end
def self.table_name
#table_name
end
#some more methods for finding rows, and creating new rows in existing tables
And the relevant part of AssignmentClass uses send on attr_accessor to give functionality to set_attrs and makes sure that before you initialize a new instance of a class all the names match what was set using set_attrs.
This highlights an important difference between dynamic, interpreted Ruby (et al) and static, compiled languages like Java/C#/C++. In Java, the compiler runs over all your source files, finds all the class/method definitions, and matches them up with usages. Ruby doesn't work like this -- a class "comes into existence" after executing its class block. Before that, the Ruby interpreter doesn't know anything about it.
In your test file, you define Pet first. Within the definition of Pet, you have belongs_to :person. belongs_to does :person.constantize, attempting to get the class object for Person. But Person doesn't exist yet! Its definition comes later in the test file.
There are a couple ways I can think that you could try to resolve this:
One would be to do what Rails does: define each class in its own file, and make the file names conform to some convention. Override constant_missing, and make it automatically load the file which defines the missing class. This will make load order problems resolve themselves automatically.
Another solution would be to make belongs_to lazy. Rather than looking up the Person class object immediately, it could just record the fact that there is an association between Pet and Person. When someone tries to call pet.person, use a missing_method hook to actually define the method. (Presumably, by that time all the class definitions will have been executed.)
Another way would be do something like:
define_method(belongs_to) do
belongs_to_class = belongs_to.constantize
self.class.send(:define_method, belongs_to) do
# put actual definition here
end
self.send(belongs_to)
end
This code is not tested, it's just to give you an idea! Though it's a pretty mind-bending idea, perhaps. Basically, you define a method which redefines itself the first time it is called. Just like using method_missing, this allows you to delay the class lookup until the first time the method is actually used.
If I can say one more thing: though you say you don't want to "overload" method_missing, I don't think that's as much of a problem as you think. It's just a matter of extracting code into helper methods to keep the definition of method_missing manageable. Maybe something like:
def method_missing(name,*a,&b)
if has_belongs_to_association?(name)
invoke_belongs_to_association(name,a,b)
elsif has_has_many_association?(name)
invoke_has_many_association(name,a,b)
# more...
else
super
end
end
Progress! Inspired by Alex D's suggestion to use method_missing to delay the creation I instead used define_methodto create a method for the name, like so:
define_method, :other_class) do |name, params|
(params[:class_name] || name.camelize).constantize
end
define_method(:other_table_name) do |other_class|
other_class.table_name
end
#etc
define_method(name) do #|params| turns out I didn't need to pass in `params` at all but:
#p "---#{params} (This is line 31: when testing this out I got the strangest error
#.rb:31:in `block in belongs_to': wrong number of arguments (0 for 1) (ArgumentError)
#if anyone can explain this I would be grateful.
#I had declared an #params class instance variable and a getter for it,
#but nothing that should make params require an argument
f_k = foreign_key(name, params)
p f_k
o_c = other_class(name, params)
o_t_n = other_table_name(o_c)
p_k = primary_key(params)
query = <<-SQL
SELECT *
FROM #{o_t_n}
WHERE #{p_k} = ?
SQL
row = DBConnection.execute(query, self.send(f_k))
o_c.parse_all(row)
end
I had the following function. It worked, but I don't like the way it looked.
# in user.rb
def awarded_requests
Request.joins('JOIN application ON application.request_id = request.id').where('accepted = true AND application.user_id = ?', self.id)
end
Then I refactored it to something that's clearly an improvement, but probably not simplest possible form:
def awarded_requests
Request.find(self.applications.accepted.map(&:request_id))
end
Can this be simplified further?
If you set up has many relationship, you can filter out those requests by merging a scope.
class User
has_many :applications
def awarded_requests
Request.joins(:applications).merge(applications.accepted)
end
end
Note that applications.accepted is not an array of records but a scope. This is how Active Record represents a part of SQL query internally, therefore it can smartly combine a few of them.
I have a class, Autodrop, that contains several methods , a.o. 'metadata', that call an external API (dropbox). They are slow.
However, I already often have that metadata around when initializing the AutodropImage, so I should make the methods smarter.
What I have in mind is this:
class Autodrop
include Dropbox
attr_reader :path
def initialize(path)
#path = path
end
def self.from_entry(drop_entry)
#drop_entry = drop_entry
self.initialize(#drop_entry.path)
end
def metadata
if #drop_entry = nil
return heavy_lifting_and_network_traffic
else
return #drop_entry.metadata
end
end
#...
end
Now, I would expect to call
entry = BarEntry.new()
foo = Autodrop.from_entry(entry)
foo.metadata
In order to avoid that heavy lifting and network traffic call.
But this does not work. And somehow, in all my newbieness, I am sure I am goind at this all wrong.
Is there a term I should look for and read about first? How would you go for this?
Note, that the examples are simplified: in my code, I inherit AutodropImage < Autodrop for example, which is called from withing AutodropGallery < Autodrop. The latter already knows all metadata for the AutodropImage, so I mostly want to avoid AutodropImage going over the heavy lifting again.
You are creating an instance variable #drop_entry in your class method from_entry and obviously it wont be available to your object that you are creating in this method. One workaround is to pass it as a parameter when you are initializing the class. It should work if you do the following modifications:
In your from_entry class method change
self.initialize(#drop_entry)
to
new(#drop_entry)
Modify initialize method to:
def initialize(drop_entry)
#drop_entry = drop_entry
#path = #drop_entry.path
end
Or if your class is tied up to pass only the path parameter, ie. you dont want to change the other existing code then you can use an optional parameter drop entry like so
def initialize(path, drop_entry=nil)
You would need to cache the metadata in a class variable.
Edit: Or in a class level instance variable.
Maybe this read will help: http://railstips.org/blog/archives/2006/11/18/class-and-instance-variables-in-ruby/