Currently, I have a User object that has a field realname. I'm trying to split on the space and convert it to two fields, first_name and last_name. Below is the script that I wrote to do this:
User.all.each do |user|
puts "Updating #{user.realname}"
name = user.realname.split(' ')
user.first_name = name[0]
user.last_name = name[1]
user.save
puts "Saved #{user.first_name} #{user.last_name}"
sleep(1)
end
When I run this using rails runner in my development environment, many of the first half of the users aren't not getting updated. Although the output from the script is perfect, when I look at what is saved in mongo, some users don't have these new fields.
Are you sure those users are valid?
Try using user.save! instead of user.save.
If you want to save this nevertheless then you can bypass validations by calling:
user.save(validate: false)
Try looking for a changed default_scope on your User class.
If the default scope have been changed, then User#All will not mean "all objects available on DB".
Related
I have a posting model that has tags using the rocket_tag gem
class Posting < ActiveRecord::Base
attr_taggable :tags
def tag_list
self.tags.join(",")
end
def tag_list=(new_tags)
attribute_will_change!(:tag_list)
# split into array (comma and any spaces), ignore empties
self.tags = new_tags.split(/,[\s]*/).reject(&:empty?)
end
It seems to work fine in my dev environment but when I use FactoryGirl to generate a posting for tests it doesn't seem to add the tags to the search index so I assume these are getting saved after the posting and so when the search index gets updated it doesn't see any saved tags so they are not searchable using tire.
I assume this means that I need to add an after_save callback to the rocket_tag Tag model to call touch() against the posting model but I'm not sure how to extend the model from the gem to add this extra callback and method to it.....unless something from the above could be at fault.
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :posting do
sequence(:name) { |m| "Posting #{m} name" }
tag_list "tag,another,third"
user
end
end
Not sure why it doesn't work but in the end I used FactoryGirl.create to create the posting, visited the edit page for the posting, used capybara's fill_in to add the tags, click_button "Submit" and then I refreshed the search index.
ie I added the tags in the same way a normal webpage user would rather than trying to use FactoryGirl to set them.
I have a little problem with paperclip saving the data passed through the form...
If I'm trying to save the record with .save() it won't save.. When I look in the server/log there are no errors or warnings for the paperclip gem :-/
# trying to save the record with save() -- not working :-/
def create
#baan_import = BaanImport.new(params[:baan_import])
if #baan_import.save
redirect_to(baan_imports_url)
else
render 'new'
end
end
Server-log: (using .save() in controller)
https://gist.github.com/1327347
I just don't get it why it's working if I'm using .create instead of .save()
# trying to save the record with Model.create() -- working!
def create
#baan_import = BaanImport.create(params[:baan_import])
redirect_to(baan_imports_url)
end
Server-log: (using .create() in controller)
https://gist.github.com/1327359
Can some one explain me why it's working with create and not with save??
Thanks,
Michael
Can you show us the BaanImport model. My first guess is you're possibly missing baan_upload in attr_accessible on your model, and as a result, Rails will not let you mass assign the file parameter for upload.
Can you also confirm (would appear as though it's properly set up) that your form has html => {:multipart => true} as an option?
I'm stuck on the last exercise in the Hartlt book 12.3.4 where you define the status feed for yourself and the users you are following. I'm a Rails newbie so just let me know if I need to post additional information.
When I tail the development log I can see will_paginate fire the SQL to gather the initial records, and the initial page looks fine when it is served up. When I click a link to go to any another page, it appears will_paginate doesn't fire the SQL to get retrieve more data from the database as the next page is server up fine, but there is no data.
There are also no new entries in the development log and maybe I'm wrong, but I think this indicates will_paginate didn't hit the database.
I tried to include all the relevant code snippits below. Happy to send anything that's missing.
Here is my pages_controller.rb
def home
#title = "Home"
if signed_in?
#micropost = Micropost.new
#feed_items = current_user.feed.paginate(:page => params[:page])
end
end
Here is my user.rb
def feed
Micropost.from_users_followed_by(self)
end
Here is my microposts.rb
scope :from_users_followed_by, lambda { |user| followed_by(user) }
private
def self.followed_by(user)
following_ids = %(SELECT followed_id FROM relationships
WHERE follower_id = :user_id)
where("user_id IN (#{following_ids}) OR user_id = :user_id",
:user_id => user)
end
NOTE: In the video tutorial (chapter 12, time = 02:06:00) and the book (page 517, listing 12.44) Harlt uses the variable "followed_ids" instead of "following_ids". In the virgin sample code you can download from his site the variable name is "following_ids", and I have tried it both ways - but it fails.
Bottom line - the dev log shows will_paginate retrieving the first batch of data, but it never goes back to the database for additional data.
Can anyone suggest what I can take a look at to resolve my problem?
Many thanks.
do you have more records than will fit on one page?
If not, it may be that will_paginate is doing a count first.
Then deciding not to load any records.
Get into the console and try it out.
$ rails console
user = User.find(23)
# the same user you're logged in as
user.feed.count
# is it more than one page?
user.feed.paginate(:page => 1)
# 20 records?
user.feed.paginate(:page => 2)
# nothing?
Also:
in your example scope :from_users_followed_by, lambda { |user| followed_by(user) } is redundant.
You may as well just say;
def feed
Micropost.followed_by(self)
end
Suppose I have a model user, which has a uniqueness constraint on the email field
If I call Factory(:user) once all is well, but if I call it a second time it'll fail with an "entry already exists" error.
I'm currently using a simple helper to search for an existing entry in the DB before creating the factory...and calling any factory I make through that helper.
It works, but it's not entirely elegant, and considering how common I assume this problem must be, I'm guessing there's a better solution. So, is there an inbuilt way in factory girl to return_or_create a factory, instead of just charging ahead with create()? If not, how do most folk avoid duplicate entries with their factories?
Simple answer: use factory.sequence
If you have a field that needs to be unique you can add a sequence in factory_girl to ensure that it is never the same:
Factory.define :user do |user|
sequence(:email){|n| "user#{n}#factory.com" }
user.password{ "secret" }
end
This will increment n each time in order to produce a unique email address such as user52#factory.com. (See https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl/wiki/Usage for more info)
However this isn't always great in Rails.env.development...
Over time I have found that this is not actually the most useful way to create unique email addresses. The reason is that while the factory is always unique for your test environment it's not always unique for your development environment and n resets itself as you start the environment up and down. In :test this isn't a problem because the database is wiped but in :development you tend to keep the same data for a while.
You then get collisions and find yourself having to manually override the email to something you know is unique which is annoying.
Often more useful: use a random number
Since I call u = Factory :user from the console on a regular basis I go instead with generating a random number. You're not guaranteed to avoid collisions but in practice it hardly ever happens:
Factory.define :user do |user|
user.email {"user_#{Random.rand(1000).to_s}#factory.com" }
user.password{ "secret" }
end
N.B. You have to use Random.rand rather than rand() because of a collision (bug?) in FactoryGirl [https://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl/issues/219](see here).
This frees you to create users at will from the command line regardless of whether there are already factory generated users in the database.
Optional extra for making email testing easier
When you get into email testing you often want to verify that an action by a particular user triggered an email to another user.
You log in as Robin Hood, send an email to Maid Marion and then go to your inbox to verify it. What you see in your inbox is something from user_842#factory.com. Who the hell is that?
You need to go back to your database to check whether the email was sent / received by whomever you expected it to be. Again this is a bit of a pain.
What I like to do instead is to generate the email using the name of the Factory user combined with a random number. This makes it far easier to check who things are coming from (and also makes collisions vanishingly unlikely). Using the Faker gem (http://faker.rubyforge.org/) to create the names we get:
Factory.define :user do |user|
user.first_name { Faker::Name::first_name }
user.last_name { Faker::Name::last_name }
user.email {|u| "#{u.first_name}_#{u.last_name}_#{Random.rand(1000).to_s}#factory.com" }
end
finally, since Faker sometimes generates names that aren't email-friendly (Mike O'Donnell) we need to whitelist acceptable characters: .gsub(/[^a-zA-Z1-10]/, '')
Factory.define :user do |user|
user.first_name { Faker::Name::first_name }
user.last_name { Faker::Name::last_name }
user.email {|u| "#{u.first_name.gsub(/[^a-zA-Z1-10]/, '')}_#{u.last_name.gsub(/[^a-zA-Z1-10]/, '')}_#{Random.rand(1000).to_s}#factory.com" }
end
This gives us personable but unique emails such as robin_hood_341#factory.com and maid_marion_10#factory.com
Here's what I do to force the 'n' in my factory girl sequence to be the same as that object's id, and thereby avoid collisions:
First, I define a method that finds what the next id should be in app/models/user.rb:
def self.next_id
self.last.nil? ? 1 : self.last.id + 1
end
Then I call User.next_id from spec/factories.rb to start the sequence:
factory :user do
association(:demo)
association(:location)
password "password"
sequence(:email, User.next_id) {|n| "darth_#{n}#sunni.ru" }
end
I found this a nice way to be sure the tests will always pass.
Otherwise you can not be sure the 100% of the times you will create a unique email.
FactoryGirl.define do
factory :user do
name { Faker::Company.name }
email { generate(:email) }
end
sequence(:email) do
gen = "user_#{rand(1000)}#factory.com"
while User.where(email: gen).exists?
gen = "user_#{rand(1000)}#factory.com"
end
gen
end
end
If you only need to generate a few values for attributes, you can also add a method to String, which keeps track of the prior strings used for an attribute. You could then do something like this:
factory :user do
fullname { Faker::Name.name.unique('user_fullname') }
end
I use this approach for seeding. I wanted to avoid sequence numbers, because they do not look realistic.
Here the String extension which makes this happen:
class String
# Makes sure that the current string instance is unique for the given id.
# If you call unique multiple times on equivalent strings, this method will suffix it with a upcounting number.
# Example:
# puts "abc".unique("some_attribute") #=> "abc"
# puts "abc".unique("some_attribute") #=> "abc-1"
# puts "abc".unique("some_attribute") #=> "abc-2"
# puts "abc".unique("other") #=> "abc"
#
# Internal:
# We keep a data structure of the following format:
# ##unique_values = {
# "some_for_id" => { "used_string_1" : 1, "used_string_2": 2 } # the numbers represent the counter to be used as suffix for the next item
# }
def unique(for_id)
##unique_values ||= {} # initialize structure in case this method was never called before
##unique_values[for_id] ||= {} # initialize structure in case we have not seen this id yet
counter = ##unique_values[for_id][self] || 0
result = (counter == 0) ? self : "#{self}-#{counter}"
counter += 1
##unique_values[for_id][self] = counter
return result
end
end
Caution: This should not be used for lots of attributes, since we track all prior strings (optimizations possible).
I have been working with Rails 3.0.5 and Ruby 1.9.2 and I have noticed that a new record doesn't get saved or isn't available for use instantly.
For example
def create
#some_record = Pool.new(params[:pool])
#some_record.users.push(current_user)
if params[:commit] == "Add More"
#some_record.save
#some_record.do_something
elsif params[:commit] == "Save"
do_something_else(params)
elsif params[:commit] == 'Cancel'
redirect_to user_url(current_user)
end
redirect_to some_other_url(current_user)
end
So when I save the record and call some_record.do_something the saved object isn't available instantly. current_user.some_records doesn't contain the newly added record but current_user.some_records.all displays the newly saved record. However on the console I am able to view the newly created record with current_user.some_records.
I'm sure I am missing something fundamental to Rails 3. I have also tried the same with current_user.some_records.build(params[:some_record] and I have the same problem. Does Rails 3 save the object instantly or is there some kind of delayed write/save because the same problem does not occur with Rails 3.0.3.
Also I am not using an authentication plugin like authlogic/devise and I simply save the current_user object to the session. I am not sure what I am doing wrong. WOuld appreciate any help?
Its also a many-to-many association between some_record and users
current_user.some_records
does not contain the newly added record because you did not save the operation after assigning #some_record.users.push(current_user).
All you have to do is to add .save after the assignment and it should work.
The model structure is not clear from your question but let's assumed that current_user belongs_to some_records
To force a database read try this:
current_user.some_records(true)
By default forcereload = false, to override this you should pass true