I have two models;
class Foo
belongs_to :bar
end
class Bar
has 1, :foo
end
This all works fine, relationship working fine and so on. The requirement arose for us to override the "all" method on Foo, to always put a condition into any query. We did this like so;
class Foo
def self.all(opts = {})
super(opts.merge(:hidden => false))
end
end
And all that works too, but when I run the following command;
Foo.all.bar
It gives me the following error:
"condition :hidden does not map to a property in Bar"
That line worked totally fine before I overrode 'all'. I don't understand why it's applying "hidden" to the 'bar' object rather than the 'foo' object!
If anyone else encounters this, here is how I eventually fixed it. The problem was in the "query" object returned by datamapper - it holds a reference to a "model" and if that isn't the model your condition is on, you get the error I was getting. Basically the way around it is by doing a check against the model like so;
class << self
#Alias out the original all
alias :unfiltered_all :all
def all(opts = {})
query = unfiltered_all(opts)
if(query.model.ancestors.include? self)
return query.unfiltered_all(:hidden => false)
else
return query.all(:foo => { :hidden => false } )
end
end
end
Related
I have recently started using Rubocop to "standardise" my code, and it has helped me optimise a lot of my code, as well as help me learn a lot of Ruby "tricks". I understand that I should use my own judgement and disable Cops where necessary, but I have found myself quite stuck with the below code:
def index
if params[:filters].present?
if params[:filters][:deleted].blank? || params[:filters][:deleted] == "false"
# if owned is true, then we don't need to filter by admin
params[:filters][:admin] = nil if params[:filters][:admin].present? && params[:filters][:owned] == "true"
# if admin is true, then must not filter by owned if false
params[:filters][:owned] = nil if params[:filters][:owned].present? && params[:filters][:admin] == "false"
companies_list =
case params[:filters][:admin]&.to_b
when true
current_user.admin_companies
when false
current_user.non_admin_companies
end
if params[:filters][:owned].present?
companies_list ||= current_user.companies
if params[:filters][:owned].to_b
companies_list = companies_list.where(owner: current_user)
else
companies_list = companies_list.where.not(owner: current_user)
end
end
else
# Filters for deleted companies
companies_list = {}
end
end
companies_list ||= current_user.companies
response = { data: companies_list.alphabetical.as_json(current_user: current_user) }
json_response(response)
end
Among others, the error that I'm getting is the following:
C: Metrics/AbcSize: Assignment Branch Condition size for index is too high. [<13, 57, 16> 60.61/15]
I understand the maths behind it, but I don't know how to simplify this code to achieve the same result.
Could someone please give me some guidance on this?
Thanks in advance.
Well first and foremost, is this code fully tested, including all the myriad conditions? It's so complex that refactoring will surely be disastrous unless the test suite is rigorous. So, write a comprehensive test suite if you don't already have one. If there's already a test suite, make sure it tests all the conditions.
Second, apply the "fat model skinny controller" paradigm. So move all the complexity into a model, let's call it CompanyFilter
def index
companies_list = CompanyFilter.new(current_user, params).list
response = { data: companies_list.alphabetical.as_json(current_user: current_user) }
json_response(response)
end
and move all those if/then/else statements into the CompanyFilter#list method
tests still pass? great, you'll still get the Rubocop warnings, but related to the CompanyFilter class.
Now you need to untangle all the conditions. It's a bit hard for me to understand what's going on, but it looks as if it should be reducible to a single case statement, with 5 possible outcomes. So the CompanyFilter class might look something like this:
class CompanyFilter
attr_accessors :current_user, :params
def initialize(current_user, params)
#current_user = current_user
#params = params
end
def list
case
when no_filter_specified
{}
when user_is_admin
#current_user.admin_companies
when user_is_owned
# etc
when # other condition
# etc
end
end
private
def no_filter_specified
#params[:filter].blank?
end
def user_is_admin
# returns boolean based on params hash
end
def user_is_owned
# returns boolean based on params hash
end
end
tests still passing? perfect! [Edit] Now you can move most of your controller tests into a model test for the CompanyFilter class.
Finally I would define all the different companies_list queries as scopes on the Company model, e.g.
class Company < ApplicationRecord
# some examples, I don't know what's appropriate in this app
scope :for_user, ->(user){ where("...") }
scope :administered_by, ->(user){ where("...") }
end
When composing database scopes ActiveRecord::SpawnMethods#merge is your friend.
Post.where(title: 'How to use .merge')
.merge(Post.where(published: true))
While it doesn't look like much it lets you programatically compose scopes without overelying on mutating assignment and if/else trees. You can for example compose an array of conditions and merge them together into a single ActiveRecord::Relation object with Array#reduce:
[Post.where(title: 'foo'), Post.where(author: 'bar')].reduce(&:merge)
# => SELECT "posts".* FROM "posts" WHERE "posts"."title" = $1 AND "posts"."author" = $2 LIMIT $3
So lets combine that with a skinny controllers approach where you handle filtering in a seperate object:
class ApplicationFilter
include ActiveModel::Attributes
include ActiveModel::AttributeAssignment
attr_accessor :user
def initialize(**attributes)
super()
assign_attributes(attributes)
end
# A convenience method to both instanciate and apply the filters
def self.call(user, params, scope: model_class.all)
return scope unless params[:filters].present?
scope.merge(
new(
permit_params(params).merge(user: user)
).to_scope
)
end
def to_scope
filters.map { |filter| apply_filter(filter) }
.compact
.select {|f| f.respond_to?(:merge) }
.reduce(&:merge)
end
private
# calls a filter_by_foo method if present or
# defaults to where(key => value)
def apply_filter(attribute)
if respond_to? "filter_by_#{attribute}"
send("filter_by_#{attribute}")
else
self.class.model_class.where(
attribute => send(attribute)
)
end
end
# Convention over Configuration is sexy.
def self.model_class
name.chomp("Filter").constantize
end
# filters the incoming params hash based on the attributes of this filter class
def self.permit_params
params.permit(filters).reject{ |k,v| v.blank? }
end
# provided for modularity
def self.filters
attribute_names
end
end
This uses some of the goodness provided by Rails to setup objects with attributes that will dynamically handle filtering attributes. It looks at the list of attributes you have declared and then slices those off the params and applies a method for that filter if present.
We can then write a concrete implementation:
class CompanyFilter < ApplicationFilter
attribute :admin, :boolean, default: false
attribute :owned, :boolean
private
def filter_by_admin
if admin
user.admin_companies
else
user.non_admin_companies
end
end
# this should be refactored to use an assocation on User
def filter_by_owned
case owned
when nil
nil
when true
Company.where(owner: user)
when false
Company.where.not(owner: user)
end
end
end
And you can call it with:
# scope is optional
#companies = CompanyFilter.call(current_user, params), scope: current_user.companies)
I'm writing a helper to check if a given class exists.
def safe_constant(constant_sym)
return Object.const_get(constant_sym) if Object.const_defined? constant_sym
end
This works just fine for something like safe_constant(:User)
However, we have a number of objects that are namespaced in modules
safe_constant(:Admin::User) is obviously not a valid symbol. I know I could determine if this exists by doing:
Object.const_get(:Admin).const_get(:User) but before I go writing some kind of split loop drill-down method to get the final constant, is there any standard way to handling this already?
According to Ruby API document, it's possible to get const_defined? and const_get working with namespace string to check and return the class constant. What needs to be done is passing the second argument (inherit) as false, for example:
class User; end
module Admin
class User; end
end
Object.const_defined?('Admin::User', false) # => true
Object.const_get('Admin::User', false) # => Admin::User
PS: const_defined? and const_get do not accept namespaced Symbol and will raise NameError exception, for example:
# namespaced String
Object.const_defined?('Admin::User', false) # => true
# namespaced Symbol
Object.const_defined?(:'Admin::User', false)
# => NameError (wrong constant name Admin::User)
How about something like this?
def safe_constant(constant_sym)
return constant_sym.to_s.constantize if valid_constant? constant_sym.to_s
end
def valid_constant?(const)
const.constantize
return true
rescue NameError
return false
end
For rspec change to use expect().to instead of .should, how would I change the folowing:
...
describe '#push_state' do
def process(klass)
state = OpenStruct.new(:namespace => "ROOT", :scope => :instance, :owner => "ROOT")
klass.new(state, nil).process
end
it "should push and return all old state info after block" do
class PushStateHandler1 < Handlers::Base
def process
push_state(:namespace => "FOO", :scope => :class, :owner => "BAR") do
namespace.should == "FOO"
scope.should == :class
owner.should == "BAR"
end
namespace.should == "ROOT"
owner.should == "ROOT"
scope.should == :instance
end
end
...
Every variety I have fails, usuaully with undefined method expect for #<PushStateHandler1:0x000000010a3470>
For example I've tried:
expect(namespace).to eq "FOO"
expect{(namespace) eq "FOO"}.to be_true
The expect method is defined in the scope of the it block. In this case, you've defined a class within that block, an instance method within that class and a block within that instance method. I don't know the specify Ruby scoping rules, but it's not surprising that the variables in that inner block are not interpreted in the scope of the outer block. The should method only worked because it's defined on Object.
So, to answer your questions, I don't know off hand how to translate from should to expect except to say that you somehow have to pass along and use the binding from the outer block to evaluate whatever expect expressions you're trying to use.
It seems I understood something wrong. I have a class
module Spree
class OmnikassaPaymentResponse
#...
# Finds a payment with provided parameters trough ActiveRecord.
def payment(state = :processing)
Spree::Payment.find(:first, :conditions => { :amount => #amount, :order_id => #order_id, :state => state } ) || raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound)
end
end
end
Which is specced in Rspec:
describe "#payment" do
it 'should try to find a Spree::Payment' do
Spree::Payment.any_instance.stub(:find).and_return(Spree::Payment.new)
Spree::Payment.any_instance.should_receive(:find)
Spree::OmnikassaPaymentResponse.new(#seal, #data).payment
end
end
This, however, always throws ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound. I expected any_instance.stub(:find).and_return() to make sure that whenever, wherever I call a #find on whatever instance I happen to have of Spree::Payment, it returns something.
In other words: I would expect the stub.and_return would avoid getting to || raise(ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound). But it does not.
Is my assumption wrong, my code? Something else?
In your case find is not an instance method, but a class method of Spree::Payment. That means you should stub it directly without any_instance like that:
Spree::Payment.stub(:find).and_return(Spree::Payment.new)
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.