I apologize for any poor terminology I use, as I'm a pretty green (Rails) programmer. But here is my question: I'm working on a Rails app (2.3.8) that manages projects. Every project has one company (in a separate table) and one contact (in a separate table). I'm currently generating a list of projects which is ordered (1) by company and (2) by contact. The problem is that I need that list in alphabetical order (based on the name of the company/contact). As of now, the best I can do is order the list by the company/contact ID, which is what the projects table is storing. What are my options—if any?
Here is what my controller currently uses to order the list I need:
def jobs_to_be_invoiced
#to_be_invoiced_prep = Project.prepare_project("To Be Invoiced", "=")
#to_be_invoiced = #jobs_to_be_invoiced_prep.all(:order => 'company_id, contact_id')
end
You can try with, adding one line in your model for Company
default_scope order: 'companys.name ASC'
Let me know if it works for u.
Related
I have two models that are related to each other. One model contains users, and the other contains all courses and related timestamp of class start. Now the "related key" between them are the 'user_id' which are in both tables. I manage to get out data when having:
return $this->hasMany(ClassInfo::class,'user_id','user_id');
This works just fine. However, since I use the model in a with clause I need to the only one of the classes that starts a given time if start time crashes with another course for the user. I have tried with both:
return $this->hasMany(ClassInfo::class,'user_id','user_id')->take(1);
return $this->hasMany(ClassInfo::class,'user_id','user_id')->limit(1);
But both just give me empty collections, I don't see why that happends?
Is there any way that I can make it return for example the one with the biggest id value from the Class table (id is auto incremental for each course registered on a user).
Thanks for any tips and guidance!
We are a housing association with a large CRM system (2016 & SP1). We have a new requirement that requires our users to be able to search for people who are current (ie not previous) occupants or residents or who are not residents (eg contractors)
For this purpose, we need to search the Person entity which has a related Tenancy entity. Person has TenancyType field with possible (option set) values Occupant, Resident, Contractor. Tenancy has TenancyStatus field with possible (text) values Current and Previous.
We tried using the following filter criteria in the quick view on the Person entity:
thinking that it would return all people who are not previous residents. However we noticed that it would filter out contractors because contractors do not have related tenancy records.
We needed to change the criteria to return all contractors OR all residents and occupants with no previous tenancy. So we changed it to the following:
at which point we got stuck because we noticed that it was not possible to AND together the second and the third conditions as the third one is a related entity.
We are wondering what the best way is to achieve the above bearing in mind that we do not want a separate view for each condition, eg one for residents, one for none residents, etc.
Any help or suggestion is greatly appreciated.
It is not possible to do this with a single query.
Instead, you can use two queries. If you do not want to do that, then using reports (as suggested by Alex) or a BI-solution would be other possibilities.
Thanks to everyone here who spent time answering my question. The following describes the correct answer:
https://community.dynamics.com/crm/f/117/p/241352/666651#666651
Two questions
1) How to model aggregate and reference between them
2) How to organise/store events so that they can be retrieved efficiently
Take this typical use case as example, we have Order and LineItem (they are an aggregate, Order is the aggregate root), and Product aggregate.
As LineItem needs to know which Product, so there are two options 1) LineItem has direct reference to Product aggregate (which seems not a best practice, as it violate the idea of aggregate being a consistence boundary because we can update Product aggregate directly from Order aggregate) 2) then LineItem only has ProductId.
It looks like 2nd option is the way to go...What do you think here?
However, another problem arises which is about building a Order read/view model. In this Order view model, it needs to know which Products are in Order (i.e. ProductId, Type, etc.). The typical use case is reporting, and CommandHandler also can use this Product object to perform logic such as whether there are too many particular products, etc. In order to do it, given the fact that those data are in two separate aggregate, then we need 1+ database roundtrips. As we are using events to build model, so the pseudo code looks like below
1) for a given order id (guid, order aggregate id), we load all the events for it; -- 1st database access
2) then build a Order aggregate, then we know which ProductId are referenced in Order;
3) for the list of ProductIds, we load all events for it; -- 2nd database access
If we build a really big graph of objects (a lot of different aggregates), then this may end up with a few more database access (each of which is slow)...What's your idea in here?
Thanks
Take this typical use case as example, we have Order and LineItem (they are an aggregate, Order is the aggregate root), and Product aggregate.
The Order aggregate makes sense the way you have described it. "Product aggregate" is more suspicious; do you ask the model if the product is allowed to change, or are you telling the model that the product has changed?
If Product can change without first consulting with the order, then the LineItem must not include the product. A reference to the product (aka the ProductId) is ok.
If we build a really big graph of objects (a lot of different aggregates), then this may end up with a few more database access (each of which is slow)...What's your idea in here?
For reads, reports, and the like -- where you aren't going to be adding new events to the history -- one possible answer is to do the slow work in advance. An asynchronous process listens for writes in the event store, and then publishes those events to a bus. Subscribers build new versions of the reports when new events are observed, and cache the results. (search keyword: cqrs)
When a client asks for a report, you give them one out of the cache. All the work is done, so it's very quick.
For command handlers, the answer is more complicated. Business rules are supposed to be in the domain model, so having the command handler try to validate the command (as opposed to the domain model) is a bit broken.
The command handler can load the products to see what the state might look like, and pass that information to the aggregate with the command data, but it's not clear that's a good idea -- if the client is going to send a command to be run, and you need to flesh out the Order command with Product data, why not instead have the command add the product data to the command directly, and skip the middle man.
CommandHandler also can use this Product object to perform logic such as whether there are too many particular products, etc.
This example is a bit vague, but taking a guess: you are thinking about cases where you prevent an order from being placed if the available inventory is insufficient to fulfill the order.
For real world inventory - a physical book in a warehouse - that's probably the wrong approach to take. First, the model itself is wrong; if you want to know how much product is in the warehouse, you should be querying the warehouse, not the product. Second, a physical warehouse is not constrained by your model -- calling the addProduct method on a warehouse aggregate doesn't cause the product to magically appear there.
Third, it probably doesn't match very well with what your domain experts want anyway. If the model says that the warehouse doesn't have enough product, do you think the stake holders want the system to
tell the shopper to buy the product somewhere else, or...
accept the order, and contact the supplier for a new delivery.
Hint: when in doubt, carefully review how amazon.com does it.
I just ran into an interesting situation about relationships and databases. I am writing a ruby app and for my database I am using postgresql. I have a parent object "user" and a related object "thingies" where a user can have one or more thingies. What would be the advantage of using a separate table vs just embedding data within a field in the parent table?
Example from ActiveRecord:
using a related table:
def change
create_table :users do |i|
i.text :name
end
create_table :thingies do |i|
i.integer :thingie
i.text :discription
end
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :thingies
end
class Thingie < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
using an embedded data structure (multidimensional array) method:
def change
create_table :users do |i|
i.text :name
i.text :thingies, array: true # example contents: [[thingie,discription],[thingie,discription]]
end
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
end
Relevant Information
I am using heroku and heroku-posgres as my database. I am using their free option, which limits me to 10,000 rows. This seems to make me want to use the multidimensional array way, but I don't really know.
Embedding a data structure in a field can work for simple cases but it prevents you from taking advantage of relational databases. Relational databases are designed to find, update, delete and protect your data. With an embedded field containing its own wad-o-data (array, JSON, xml etc), you wind up writing all the code to do this yourself.
There are cases where the embedded field might be more suitable, but for this question as an example I will use a case that highlights the advantages of a related table approch.
Imagine a User and Post example for a blog.
For an embedded post solution, you would have a table something like this (psuedocode - these are probably not valid ddl):
create table Users {
id int auto_increment,
name varchar(200)
post text[][],
}
With related tables, you would do something like
create table Users {
id int auto_increment,
name varchar(200)
}
create table Posts {
id auto_increment,
user_id int,
content text
}
Object Relational Mapping (ORM) tools: With the embedded post, you will be writing the code manually to add posts to a user, navigate through existing posts, validate them, delete them etc. With the separate table design, you can leverage the ActiveRecord (or whatever object relational system you are using) tools for this which should keep your code much simpler.
Flexibility: Imagine you want to add a date field to the post. You can do it with an embedded field, but you will have to write code to parse your array, validate the fields, update the existing embedded posts etc. With the separate table, this is much simpler. In addition, lets say you want to add an Editor to your system who approves all the posts. With the relational example this is easy. As an example to find all posts edited by 'Bob' with ActiveRecord, you would just need:
Editor.where(name: 'Bob').posts
For the embedded side, you would have to write code to walk through every user in the database, parse every one of their posts and look for 'Bob' in the editor field.
Performance: Imagine that you have 10,000 users with an average of 100 posts each. Now you want to find all posts done on a certain date. With the embedded field, you must loop through every record, parse the entire array of all posts, extract the dates and check agains the one you want. This will chew up both cpu and disk i/0. For the database, you can easily index the date field and pull out the exact records you need without parsing every post from every user.
Standards: Using a vendor specific data structure means that moving your application to another database could be a pain. Postgres appears to have a rich set of data types, but they are not the same as MySQL, Oracle, SQL Server etc. If you stick with standard data types, you will have a much easier time swapping backends.
These are the main issues I see off the top. I have made this mistake and paid the price for it, so unless there is a super-compelling reason do do otherwise, I would use the separate table.
what if users John and Ann have the same thingies? the records will be duplicated and if you decide to change the name of thingie you will have to change two or more records. If thingie is stored in the separate table you have to change only one record. FYI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization
Benefits of one to many:
Easier ORM (Object Relational Mapping) integration. You can use it either way, but you have to define your tables with native sql. Having distinct tables is easier and you can make use of auto-generated mappings.
Your space limitation of 10,000 rows will go further with the one to many relationship in the case that 2 or more people can have the same "thingies."
Handle users and thingies separately. In some cases, you might only care about people or thingies, not their relationship with each other. Some examples, updating a username or thingy description, getting a list of all thingies (or all users). Selecting from the single table can make it harding to work with.
Maintenance and manipulation is easier. In the case that a user or a thingy is updated (name change, email address update, etc), you only need to update 1 record in their table instead of writing update statements "where user_id=?".
Enforceable database constraints. What if a thingy is not owned by anyone? Is the user column now nillable? It would have to be in the single table case, so you could not enforce a simple "not nillable" username, for example.
There are a lot of reasons of course. If you are using a relational database, you should make use of the one to many by separating your objects (users and thingies) as separate tables. Considering your limitation on number of records and that the size of your dataset is small (under 10,000), you shouldn't feel the down side of normalized data.
The short truth is that there are benefits of both. You could, for example, get faster read times from the single table approach because you don't need complicated joins.
Here is a good reference with the pros/cons of both (normalized is the multiple table approach and denormalized is the single table approach).
http://www.ovaistariq.net/199/databases-normalization-or-denormalization-which-is-the-better-technique/
Besides the benefits other mentioned, there is also one thing about standards. If you are working on this app alone, then that's not a problem, but if someone else would want to change something, then the nightmare starts.
It may take this guy a lot of time to understand how it works alone. And modifing something like this will take even more time. This way, some simple improvement may be really time consuming. And at some point, you will be working with other people. So always code like the guy who works with your code at the end is the brutal psychopath who knows where you live.
Has anyone tried to make a pivot on 3 tables?
My case is a project management.
I have projects that contain multiple customers that contain multiple tasks.
I wish I could recover all cascaded
Project::with('customers')->with('customers.tasks')->get()
I have tried several times but nothing conclusive.
To give you an idea of the result: http://dhtmlx.com/docs/products/dhtmlxGantt/01_basic.html
We have: Product launch (project) > Development (client) > Develop System (task)
Each task has a start date and an end date. So I have to be able to find these dates since the project itself (represented by the green bar).
If you have any ideas let me know :)
I think your best bet would be to create a pivot table between customers and tasks. And it would also have a column for project_id.
This would give you the ability to find all of the customer's tasks and all tasks belonging to a certain customer.
Then you would have a projects table, and you'd be able to find a project's customers/tasks using hasManyThrough. I believe this would also require you to setup a model for your customer_task table as well, but should be fairly straight forward.