I have a collection that has a username as a field. The Model defines this field to be unique. However I was able to insert a duplicate value in the database.
class Profile
include Mongoid::Document
include Mongoid::Paperclip
field :username
index({ username: 1 } , { unique: true })
end
The Collection however has 2 usernames that are the same
{ "_id" : ObjectId( "50b3b323421aa95da6000004" ),
"username" : "marceloreuse" }
{ "_id" : ObjectId( "50b3b567421aa93d84000002" ),
"username" : "marceloreuse" }
What went wrong here?
I would double check your indexes - from the console try db.collection.getIndexes() and make sure your index is present.
In case you missed it, Mongoid doesn't auto build the index because you specified it - you need to run the included: rake db:mongoid:create_indexes.
Related
I'm stuck with a classic greatest-n-per-group problem, where a cat can have many kittens, but I'm usually just interested in the youngest.
I already do know how to build a scope and a has_one relation for the Cat.
My question: Is there a way to...
list all cats' names together with their youngest kittens' names...
while at the same time ordering them by their respective youngest kitten's name...
...using just a single SELECT under the hood?
What I got so far:
class Cat < ApplicationRecord
has_many :kittens
has_one :youngest_kitten, -> { merge(Kitten.youngest) }, foreign_key: :cat_id, class_name: :Kitten
scope :with_youngest_kittens, lambda {
joins(:kittens)
.joins(Kitten.younger_kittens_sql("cats.id"))
.where(younger_kittens: { id: nil })
}
end
class Kitten
belongs_to :cat
scope :youngest, lambda {
joins(Kitten.younger_kittens_sql("kittens.cat_id"))
.where(younger_kittens: { id: nil })
}
def self.younger_kittens_sql(cat_field_name)
%{
LEFT OUTER JOIN kittens AS younger_kittens
ON younger_kittens.cat_id = #{cat_field_name}
AND younger_kittens.created_at > kittens.created_at
}
end
end
When I run Cat.with_latest_kittens.order('kittens.name').map(&:name) everything looks fine: I get all the cats' names with just a single SELECT.
But when I run Cat.with_latest_kittens.order('kittens.name').map {|cat| cat.youngest_kitten.name}, I get the right result too, but a superfluous additional SELECT per cat is executed. Which is just logical, because the with_youngest_kittens doesn't know it should populate youngest_kitten. Is there a way to tell it or am I going about this all wrong?
I think adding an includes to your :with_youngest_kittens scope will fix the problem. Try changing the scope to
scope :with_youngest_kittens, lambda {
includes(:youngest_kitten)
.joins(:kittens)
.joins(Kitten.younger_kittens_sql("cats.id"))
.where(younger_kittens: { id: nil })
}
This should prevent Rails from making a separate database query for every kitten.
I found a solution that produces no extra SELECT, however it is quite ugly, so I'll actually go for localarrow's solution as it's more readable!
I thought I'd still post it for the sake of completeness (If someone needs the few ms extra performance):
First I add custom tailored select fields for each kitten column to the Cat.with_youngest_kitten scope:
scope :with_youngest_kittens, lambda {
kitten_columns = Kitten
.column_names
.map { |column_name| "kittens.#{column_name} AS `youngest_kittens.#{column_name}`" }
.join(', ')
joins(:kittens)
.joins(Kitten.latest_outer_join_sql("cats.id"))
.where(later_kittens: { id: nil })
.select("cats.*, #{kitten_columns}")
}
Then I override the has_one youngest_kitten relation with a method, that retrieves those custom selects and calls super if no data has been retrieved:
def youngest_kitten
return super if self[:'youngest_kittens.id'].nil?
kitten_hash = Hash[Kitten.column_names.collect { |column_name| [column_name, self[:"youngest_kittens.#{column_name}"]] }]
kitten_hash[:cat] = self
Kitten.new(kitten_hash)
end
For the sake of this question, let's say I have a very simple model:
class DystopianFuture::Human < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :hobbies
validates :hobbies, :presence => {message: 'Please pick at least 1 Hobby!!'}
end
The problem is that when a human is updating their hobbies on a form and they don't pick any hobbies, there's no way for me to reflect this in the code without actually deleting all the associations.
So, say the action looks like this:
def update
hobbies = params[:hobbies]
human = Human.find(params[:id])
#ideally here I'd like to go
human.hobbies.clear
#but this updates the db immediately
if hobbies && hobbies.any?
human.hobbies.build(hobbies)
end
if human.save
#great
else
#crap
end
end
Notice the human.hobbies.clear line. I'd like to call this to make sure I'm only saving the new hobbies. It means I can also check to see if the user hasn't checked any hobbies on the form.
But I can't do that as it clears the db. I don't want to write anything to the database unless I know the model is valid.
What am I doing wrong here?
Initialy I also did this same way. Then found out one solution for this issue.
You need to do something like this
params[:heman][:hobby_ids]=[] if params[:human][:hobby_ids].nil?
Then check
if human.update_attributes(params[:human])
Hope you will get some idea...
EDIT:
Make hobbies params like this
hobbies = { hobbies_attributes: [
{ title: 'h1' },
{ title: 'h2' },
{ title: 'h3', _destroy: '1' } # existing hobby
]}
if Human.update_atttributes(hobbies) # use this condition
For this you need to declare accepts_nested_attributes_for :hobbies, allow_destroy: true in your Human model.
See more about this here http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/NestedAttributes/ClassMethods.html
You can try https://github.com/ryanb/nested_form for this purpose..
I'm doing a mutli-index query With Tire and rails 3 and I want to filter out Venues who have approved => false so I need some sort of combo filter.
Here is the query
query = params[:q]
from = params.delete(:from)
size = params[:size] || 25
Tire.search(
[Venue.index_name,
Performer.index_name, User.index_name], load: true) do |s|
s.query do
string(query, fields: [:_all, :name, :title], use_dis_max: true)
end
s.from from if from
s.size size if size
end.results.to_a
This line removes all Performers and Users because they don't have an :approved field.
s.filter(:term, :approved => true )
And this line obviously removes all non-venues which is no good.
s.filter(:term, { :approved => true, :index_name => 'venues'} )
Any ideas besides adding an approved: true field to all Users and Performers? I think something like this is what I want conceptually:
s.filter(:term, :approved => true, :if => {:index_name => 'venues'} )
EDIT Thanks to Mallox I was able to find the Should construct but I'm still struggling to implement it Tire. It seems like the below code should work but it return no results on any query. I also remove the "{:terms => { :index_name => ["performers", "users"]}}," to make sure it wasn't my use of index name or multiple lines of query that was the problem and still no luck. Can anybody shed some light on how to do this in Tire?
s.filter(:bool, :should => [
{:terms => { :index_name => ["performers", "users"]}},
{:term => { :approved => true}},
] )
So i have little knowledge about Ruby and Tire, but the ElasticSearch query that you want to build would be based on a bool filter, that contains some "should" entries (which would translate into inclusive OR).
So in your case something along the lines of:
"filter" : {
"bool" : {
"should" : [
{
"terms" : { "_type" : ["Performers","Users"] }
},
{
"term" : { "approved" : true }
}
]
}
}
Take a look at the documentation here, maybe that'll help:
:http://www.elasticsearch.org/guide/reference/query-dsl/bool-filter/
I have an issue related to filtering data in Netzke Grid.
column :user_id do |c|
c.editor = {xtype: :combobox, editable: false, min_chars: 2}
end
It is mentioned in the doc that,
A hash that will override the automatic editor configuration. For example, for one-to-many association column you may set it to {min_chars: 1}, which will be passed to the combobox and make it query its remote data after entering 1 character (instead of default 4).
Seems {min_chars: 1} is not working as expected.
Please see example below for simple Customers grid and let me know if it works for you. Netzke way is to use __ (double underscore) to define one-to-many associations. This gives you combobox and all necessary data bindings. I tried different ways to make min_chars property work, but it all failed. Could be a bug. In the end, the only thing that worked is to do it from init_component method.
class Customers < Netzke::Basepack::Grid
def configure(c)
super
c.model = 'Customer'
c.columns = [
{ name: :name, header: 'Customer Name' },
{ id: :country__name, name: :country__name, header: 'Country' }
]
end
js_configure do |c|
c.init_component = <<-JS
function() {
this.callParent();
Ext.ComponentManager.get('country__name').editor.minChars = 2;
}
JS
end
end
I want do query on model, and next depend on resaults do someting else
The problem:
exists = false
App.User.where(email: "example#domain.com").exists (error, exists) =>
console.log exists #=> true
console.log exists #=> false
Example why I want this:
class App.User extends Tower.Model
newUser: ->
exists = false
App.User.where(email: "some#email.com").exists (error, exists) =>
unless exists # here is always: exists = false
#.create
email: "some#email.com" # so user is created
I also tried something like this:
class App.User extends Tower.Model
newUser: ->
#.where(email: "some#email.com").exists (error, exists) =>
unless exists # statement works
#.create # but I can't create an user
email: "some#email.com"
App.User.create # also doesn't work
email: "some#email.com"
user = new App.User # this also fails
user.set "email", "some#email.com"
user.save()
Queries to the database are asynchronous, which means any code you need to run after the data comes back have to be inside the callback. So in your first example, that unless exists is actually going to run before the database query completes. I think if you indent it and the code that comes after it by two spaces, that will place it inside the callback and it will run as intended.
Try:
class App.User extends Tower.Model
newUser: ->
exists = false
App.User.where(email: "some#email.com").exists (error, exists) =>
unless exists
#.create
email: "some#email.com"
If the uniqueness validation was working correctly, you could get the same result more easily by just placing a uniqueness validation on your model. So in your model you would have something like:
class App.User extends Tower.Model
#field "email", type: "String"
#field "firstName", type: "String"
#field "lastName", type: "String"
#hasMany "posts"
#validates 'email', uniqueness: true
#timestamps()
Unfortunately, based on some recent experiments, there's a small bug in uniqueness causing it to fail. I posted the bug on tower's issues list and I'm also looking into it myself, so hopefully it will be working properly soon.
Hope this helps.
Edit: Thought I would mention, I'm not entirely sure why the second example fails, since it looks a lot like my suggestion, unless either I'm wrong or the context (the value of #) is changing because of using # in the database query instead of App.User.