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
Related
I want to override the << setter in my relation. For example, given:
class Library < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :groups
def readers
groups.find_by(name: 'readers').users
end
end
class Group < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :group_memberships
has_many :users, through: :group_memberships
end
class GroupMembership < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :group
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :groups, through :group_membership
end
I want to do something like
someLibrary.readers << user1
and some additional things to happen after this.
The code should look something like:
def <<(objects)
super objects
#do other things here
end
Where should it be? I guess in Group, like:
class Group
...
def users<<(objects)
super objects
#do stuff
end
end
but I only want to do it when I'm invoking << on readers.
I want to know if there is a way to know whether I'm invoking << on a group users relationship, or whether I have access to group object when I'm invoking << method on group users through the relationship.
I want to do it because it looks nice. The easiest way would be to define separate method to set readers (and be more explicit), but I want to know if it is possible in activerecord or in ruby.
edit:
Yeah I know that overriding core methods is bad thing and people go to hell for that, yada yada yada.
I'm just curious how it's done. Like, for learning purposes.
Besides the aim is just to override the << method on that particular relation so probable there might be some justification why someone might want to do it.
Obligatory disclaimer:
I do not recommend that you do this, in 'important' code. Changing the behaviour of methods like this will confuse the hell out of other developers (as well as your future self), and lead to all sorts of unintended behavioural changes!
But assuming that this is 'just for fun'...
Based on the information above, someLibrary.readers returns a collection of User records. So all we need to do is add the desired behaviour to that class.
Normally you can do this by just defining a class method, in one of two ways:
class User
def self.foo
puts 'this works!'
end
class << self
def bar
puts 'this works too!'
end
end
end
With the above in place, you can call the methods like:
someLibrary.readers.foo
someLibrary.readers.bar
...However, there is some rails black magic going on under the hood here. someLibrary.readers is actually an instance of User::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy, and the above methods are being picked up dynamically and appended to ActiveRecord::Associations::CollectionProxy.
Because of this dynamic method definition, it is not possible to override existing Rails methods (such as <<) in this manner. Instead, we'll need to monkey-patch the User::ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy class directly:
class User
class ActiveRecord_Associations_CollectionProxy
def <<(objects)
super(objects)
# do stuff
end
end
end
If you're looking for a better way of doing this however, I'd recommend using a service object design pattern. You can then encapsulate any more complex/custom logic relating to creating/updating/deleting users, libraries, etc. in a clean and isolated abstraction.
The more established way to do this...
class Library < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :groups
has_one :reader_group -> {groups.find_by(name: 'readers')}
has_many :readers, through: :reader_group, class_name: 'User', foreign_key: 'user_id'
end
And that's it. You can now do
my_library.readers << another_user
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 ]
I've setup a nested form in my rails 3.2.3 app, it's working fine, my models are:
class Recipe < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :title, :description, :excerpt, :date, :ingredient_lines_attributes
has_and_belongs_to_many :ingredient_lines
accepts_nested_attributes_for :ingredient_lines
end
and:
class IngredientLine < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :ingredient_id, :measurement_unit_id, :quantity
has_and_belongs_to_many :recipes
belongs_to :measurement_unit
belongs_to :ingredient
end
As above, a Recipe can have multiple IngredientLines and vice versa.
What I'm trying to avoid is record duplication on IngredienLine table.
For example imagine that for recipe_1 an IngredientLine with {"measurement_unit_id" => 1, "ingredient_id" => 1, "quantity" => 3.5} is associated, if for recipe_5 the IngredientLine child form is compiled by the user with the same values, I don't want a new record on IngredientLine table, but only a new association record in the join table ingredient_lines_recipes.
Note that currently I dont't have any IngredientLine controller as saving and updating IngredientLines is handled by nested form routines. Even my Recipe controller is plain and standard:
class RecipesController < ApplicationController
respond_to :html
def new
#recipe = Recipe.new
end
def create
#recipe = Recipe.new(params[:recipe])
flash[:notice] = 'Recipe saved.' if #recipe.save
respond_with(#recipe)
end
def destroy
#recipe = Recipe.find(params[:id])
#recipe.destroy
respond_with(:recipes)
end
def edit
respond_with(#recipe = Recipe.find(params[:id]))
end
def update
#recipe = Recipe.find(params[:id])
flash[:notice] = 'Recipe updated.' if #recipe.update_attributes(params[:recipe])
respond_with(#recipe)
end
end
My guess is that should be enough to override the standard create behavior for IngredientLine with find_or_create, but I don't know how to achieve it.
But there's another important point to take care, imagine the edit of a child form where some IngredientLines are present, if I add another IngredientLine, which is already stored in IngredientLine table, rails of course should not write anything on IngredientLine table, but should also distinguish between child records already associated to the parent, and the new child record for which needs to create the relation, writing a new record on the join table.
Thanks!
in Recipe model redefine method
def ingredient_lines_attributes=(attributes)
self.ingredient_lines << IngredientLine.where(attributes).first_or_initialize
end
Old question but I had the same problem. Forgot to add :id to white list with rails 4 strong_parameters.
For example:
widgets_controller.rb
def widget_params
params.require(:widget).permit(:name, :foos_attributes => [:id, :name, :_destroy],)
end
widget.rb
class Widget < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :foos, dependent: :destroy
accepts_nested_attributes_for :foos, allow_destroy: true
end
foo.rb
class Foo < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :widget
end
I have run into a similar situation and found inspiration in this answer. In short, I don't worry about the duplication of nested models until save time.
Translated to your example, I added autosave_associated_records_for_ingredient_lines to Recipe. It iterates through ingredient_lines and performs a find_or_create as your intuition said. If ingredient_lines are complex, Yuri's first_or_initialize approach may be cleaner.
I believe this has the behavior you're looking for: nested models are never duplicated, but editing one causes a new record rather than updating a shared one. There is the strong possibility of orphaned ingredient_lines but if that's a serious concern you could choose to update if that model has only one recipe with an id that matches the current one.
I have a simple user model
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :user_profile
end
And a simple user_profile model
class UserProfile < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :user
end
The issue is when I call the following build method, without calling the save method, I end up with a new record in the database (if it passes validation)
class UserProfilesController < ApplicationController
def create
#current_user = login_from_session
#user_profile = current_user.build_user_profile(params[:user_profile])
##user_profile.save (even with this line commented out, it still save a new db record)
redirect_to new_user_profile_path
end
Anyyyyyy one have anyyy idea what's going on.
The definition of this method says the following but it's still saving for me
build_association(attributes = {})
Returns a new object of the associated type that has been instantiated with attributes and linked to this object through a foreign key, but has not yet been saved.
http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Associations/ClassMethods.html#method-i-has_one
Ok, I'm sure experienced vets already know this, but as a rookie I had to figure it out the long way...let me see if I can explain this without screwing it up
Although I was not directly saving the user_profile object, I noticed in my logs that something was updating the user model's last_activity_time (and the user_profile model) each time I submitted the form (the user model's last_activity date was also updated when the logged in user did various other things too - I later realized this was set in the Sorcery gem configuration).
Per http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/AutosaveAssociation.html
AutosaveAssociation is a module that takes care of automatically saving associated records when their parent is saved. In my case, the user mode is the parent and the scenario they provide below mirrors my experience.
class Post
has_one :author, :autosave => true
end
post = Post.find(1)
post.title # => "The current global position of migrating ducks"
post.author.name # => "alloy"
post.title = "On the migration of ducks"
post.author.name = "Eloy Duran"
post.save
post.reload
post.title # => "On the migration of ducks"
post.author.name # => "Eloy Duran"
The following resolutions resolved my problem
1. Stopping Sorcery (config setting) from updating the users last_activity_time (for every action)
or
2. Passing an ':autosave => false' option when I set the association in the user model as follows
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :user_profile, :autosave => false
end
Consider the following parent/child relationship where Parent is 1..n with Kids (only the relevant stuff here)...
class Parent < ActiveRecord::Base
# !EDIT! - was missing this require originally -- was the root cause!
require "Kid"
has_many :kids, :dependent => :destroy, :validate => true
accepts_nested_attributes_for :kids
validates_associated :kids
end
class Kid < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :parent
# for simplicity, assume a single field: #item
validates_presence_of :item, :message => "is expected"
end
The validates_presence_of methods on the Kid model works as expected on validation failure, generating a final string of Item is expected per the custom message attribute supplied.
But if try validates_with, instead...
class Kid < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :parent
validates_with TrivialValidator
end
class TrivialValidator
def validate
if record.item != "good"
record.errors[:base] << "Bad item!"
end
end
end
...Rails returns a NameError - uninitialized constant Parent::Kid error following not only an attempt to create (initial persist) user data, but also when even attempting to build the initial form. Relevant bits from the controller:
def new
#parent = Parent.new
#parent.kids.new # NameError, validates_* methods called within
end
def create
#parent = Parent.new(params[:parent])
#parent.save # NameError, validates_* methods called within
end
The error suggests that somewhere during model name (and perhaps field name?) resolution for error message construction, something has run afoul. But why would it happen for some validates_* methods and not others?
Anybody else hit a wall with this? Is there some ceremony needed here that I've left out in order to make this work, particularly regarding model names?
After a few hours away, and returning fresh -- Was missing require "Kid" in Parent class. Will edit.