How can I validate uniqueness of an attribute with a custom or virtual scope? I thought of using a virtual attribute, but it keeps trying to query audit_year in the database. I would rather not create another database column just for the purpose of this uniqueness constraint.
Each location can only have one audit scheduled per year, so I need to extract the year from the scheduled attribute and validate uniqueness over that scope.
class Audit
attr_accessible :location_name, :scheduled_date, :completion_date ...
validates :location_name, :presence => true, :uniqueness => { :scope => :audit_year }
...
def audit_year
scheduled_date.year
end
end
I may not even be on the correct path with my virtual attribute attempts. What would be the "right" way to do this in rails?
I know this is a bit late, but I figured I'd pitch in. I'm doing this from memory so you may need to screw with this a bit.
My first thought is in your audit_year method, you could query the database for all years. Something like:
def audit_year
!self.class.select('selected_date').map{ |a| a.selected_date.year }.include?(selected_date.year)
# or using Rails 3.2 and Ruby 1.9.3:
# !self.class.pluck('created_at').map(&:year).include?(selected_date.year)
end
My assumption of the unique method is if it returns false, it will fail validation. This code selects just that one column from your class (I used self.class instead of Audit so it's more reusable), then maps out the years to an array. If it's included (true), return the opposite (!). You could probably optimize the query with uniq, but it depends on how large the table is whether it's necessary or not.
The other option would be to roll your own validator for the attribute, which really wouldn't be that difficult. The only difference is you'd add a line that conditionally checks for selected_date.present? in addition to the above. A great resource is the Rails Guides for callbacks and errors if you don't know how: http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_validations_callbacks.html
Hope that helps.
Related
I have heard couple of people complaining and posting questions about mass-assignment in Rails. I have got same error couple of times and all I did was attr_accessible. But what exactly is mass assignment? could somebody explain with example?
Mass Assignment is the name Rails gives to the act of constructing your object with a parameters hash. It is "mass assignment" in that you are assigning multiple values to attributes via a single assignment operator.
The following snippets perform mass assignment of the name and topic attribute of the Post model:
Post.new(:name => "John", :topic => "Something")
Post.create(:name => "John", :topic => "Something")
Post.update_attributes(:name => "John", :topic => "Something")
In order for this to work, your model must allow mass assignments for each attribute in the hash you're passing in.
There are two situations in which this will fail:
You have an attr_accessible declaration which does not include :name
You have an attr_protected which does include :name
It recently became the default that attributes had to be manually white-listed via a attr_accessible in order for mass assignment to succeed. Prior to this, the default was for attributes to be assignable unless they were explicitly black-listed attr_protected or any other attribute was white-listed with attr_acessible.
It is important to consider which attributes can be mass assigned because code like this is so common:
#post = Post.new(params[:post])
Typically this is used when the user submits a form rendered by a form_for #post. In an ideal world, the params[:post] hash should only contain the fields we displayed on the form. However, it is trivial easy for the user to pass additional fields in their request, so in effect you're allowing a user to set any fields on #post, not just the ones displayed on the form.
Failure to safely use mass assignment has led to several high profile bugs in some pretty big Rails applications, like the one that allowed somebody to inject their own public key into the list of trusted keys on a Github repository and push code directly to a repository they should not have had access to.
I'm trying to track user login history for stat purposes but its not clear to me what the best way to go about it would be. I could have a separate table that records users and their login stats with a date, but that table could get REALLY big. I could track some historic fields in the User model/object itself in a parse-able field and just update it (them) with some delimited string format. e.g. split on :, get the last one, if an included date code isn't today, add an item (date+count) otherwise increment, then save it back. At least with this second approach it would be easy to remove old items (e.g. only keep 30 days of daily logins, or IPs), as a separate table would require a task to delete old records.
I'm a big fan of instant changes. Tasks are useful, but can complicate things for maintenance reasons.
Anyone have any suggestions? I don't have an external data caching solution up or anything yet. Any pointers are also welcome! (I've been hunting for similar questions and answers)
Thanks!
If you have the :trackable module, I found this the easiest way. In the User model (or whichever model you're authenticating)
def update_tracked_fields!(request)
old_signin = self.last_sign_in_at
super
if self.last_sign_in_at != old_signin
Audit.create :user => self, :action => "login", :ip => self.last_sign_in_ip
end
end
(Inspired by https://github.com/plataformatec/devise/wiki/How-To:-Turn-off-trackable-for-admin-users)
There is a nice way to do that through Devise.
Warden sets up a hook called after_set_user that runs after setting a user. So, supposed you have a model Login containing an ip field, a logged_in_at field and user_id field, you can only create the record using this fields.
Warden::Manager.after_set_user :except => :fetch do |record, warden, options|
Login.create!(:ip => warden.request.ip, :logged_in_at => Time.now, :user_id => record.id)
end
Building upon #user208769's answer, the core Devise::Models::Trackable#update_tracked_fields! method now calls a helper method named update_tracked_fields prior to saving. That means you can use ActiveRecord::Dirty helpers to make it a little simpler:
def update_tracked_fields(request)
super
if last_sign_in_at_changed?
Audit.create(user: self, action: 'login', ip: last_sign_in_ip)
end
end
This can be simplified even further (and be more reliable given validations) if audits is a relationship on your model:
def update_tracked_fields(request)
super
audits.build(action: 'login', ip: last_sign_in_ip) if last_sign_in_at_changed?
end
Devise supports tracking the last signed in date and the last signed in ip address with it's :trackable module. By adding this module to your user model, and then also adding the correct fields to your database, which are:
:sign_in_count, :type => Integer, :default => 0
:current_sign_in_at, :type => Time
:last_sign_in_at, :type => Time
:current_sign_in_ip, :type => String
:last_sign_in_ip, :type => String
You could then override the Devise::SessionsController and it's create action to then save the :last_sign_in_at and :last_sign_in_ip to a separate table in a before_create callback. You should then be able to keep them as long you would like.
Here's an example (scribd_analytics)
create_table 'page_views' do |t|
t.column 'user_id', :integer
t.column 'request_url', :string, :limit => 200
t.column 'session', :string, :limit => 32
t.column 'ip_address', :string, :limit => 16
t.column 'referer', :string, :limit => 200
t.column 'user_agent', :string, :limit => 200
t.column 'created_at', :timestamp
end
Add a whole bunch of indexes, depending on queries
Create a PageView on every request
We used a hand-built SQL query to take out the ActiveRecord overhead on
this
Might try MySQL's 'insert delayed´
Analytics queries are usually hand-coded SQL
Use 'explain select´ to make sure MySQL isusing the indexes you expect
Scales pretty well
BUT analytics queries expensive, can clog upmain DB server
Our solution:
use two DB servers in a master/slave setup
move all the analytics queries to the slave
http://www.scribd.com/doc/49575/Scaling-Rails-Presentation-From-Scribd-Launch
Another option to check is Gattica with Google Analytics
I hate answering my own questions, especially given that you both gave helpful answers. I think answering my question with the approach I took might help others, in combination with your answers.
I've been playing with the Impressionist Gem (the only useful page view Gem since the abandoned RailStat) with good results so far. After setting up the basic migration, I found that the expected usage follows Rail's MVC design very closely. If you add "impressionist" to a Controller, it will go looking for the Model when logging the page view to the database. You can modify this behaviour or just call impressionist yourself in your Controller (or anywhere really) if you're like me and happen to be testing it out on a Controller that doesn't have a Model.
Anyways, I got it working with Devise to track successful logins by overriding the Devise::SessionsController and just calling the impressionist method for the #current_member: (don't forget to check if it's nil! on failed login)
class TestSessionController < Devise::SessionsController
def create
if not #current_member.nil?
impressionist(#current_member)
end
super
end
end
Adding it to other site parts later for some limited analytics is easy to do. The only other thing I had to do was update my routes to use the new TestSessionController for the Devise login route:
post 'login' => 'test_session#create', :as => :member_session
Devise works like normal without having to modify Devise in anyway, and my impressionist DB table is indexed and logging logins. I'll just need a rake task later to trim it weekly or so.
Now I just need to work out how to chart daily logins without having to write a bunch of looping, dirty queries...
There is also 'paper_trail' gem, that allows to track model changes.
I current test uniqueness validations in rspec using something like the following:
#unique = Unique.create!(:unique_field => 'unique_value')
Unique.new(:unique_field => 'unique_value').should_not be_valid
Ideally, I'd like to get my nose out of the database for uniqueness validations. Any ideas how to go about doing that?
validates_uniqueness_of does not guarantee the absence of duplicate record insertions, because uniqueness checks on the application level are inherently prone to race conditionsmore. To get around this problem you might define unique index on on your unique field or write some workaround to have tests that don't depend on your database however I don't see any point in writing these tests. You'll just have some useless code in your app.
you can change the unique value dynamically by editing your factory to change every time you run test
for example
Factory.define :user do |f|
f.sequence(:username) { |n| "foo#{n}" }
f.password "foobar"
f.password_confirmation { |u| u.password }
f.sequence(:email) { |n| "foo#{n}#example.com" }
end
iHope it helpful , good luck
source : Railscasts Episode #158: Factory Girl
I can return a collection of objects, with only one (:limit => 1) but is there a way to return the .first() object only, like not within a collection?
named_scope :profile, :conditions => {:association => 'owner', :resource_type => 'Profile'}, :limit => 1 # => collection of 1 profile but I want the profile only NOT in a collection or array
the workaround is simply to apply .first() to the results, but I'd just like to clean up the code and make it less error prone.
You'll probably need to create a class method instead:
def self.profile
where(:association => 'owner', :resource_type => 'Profile').first
end
Note that with Rails 3 you should be using the where(...) syntax, and that when doing .first, you don't need to specify the limit.
First off, if you're using Rails 3 you should be using scope instead of named_scope. Same thing, different, err, name (named_scope will still work, but it is deprecated). Now that that is out of the way…
A scope (or named scope) takes two arguments (a symbol and either a lambda or a hash) and defines a class method on that model that returns an ActiveRecord::Relation, which is why you're able to chain methods on it.
first, like find or all, returns an actual result from the database. For this reason it won't work in a scope.
All that said, you can define your own class method on your model that gives the behavior you're wanting (as 2 people already answered while I was typing this). This is actually recommended over using scopes by many well-respected devs in the Rails community. Since using the scope class macro just defines class methods itself anyways, there isn't really a downside to this, and it has the benefit of flexibility (like in your case here).
Define a class method to do this:
def profile
where(:association => "owner", :resource_type => 'Profile').first
end
The first already does an implicit limit 1 on the query, AND will order it by the primary key of the table so you'll always get the first.
Apologies for the long title, but this is bothering me. I'm new to Rails, so this is my first project. Rails 3.0.3.
In my model, a User may or may not have read many Entries; this is tracked in a model called ReadEntries. This many-to-one relationship is properly defined in the code, I think.
User.rb:
has_many :read_entries
Entry.rb:
has_many :read_entries
ReadEntry.rb:
belongs_to :entry
belongs_to :user
This table has to be populated at some point. If I try to do this:
user.read_entries.find_or_create_by_entry_id(entry.id, :read => false)
I get the error Unknown key(s): read. Leave out trying to set :read, and it works.
However, if I create the same row with this, it works:
ReadEntry.find_or_create_by_entry_id_and_user_id(entry.id, user.id, :read => false)
Logically, these methods should be identical, right? Thanks.
I've also had weird experiences with find_or_create. I would love it if it worked, but it seems inconsistent.
I'm currently having the same issue as you, and I think it may be due to calling find_or_create on an association as opposed to the model directly. Here's my example:
permission_assignments.find_or_create_by_role_id(:role_id => role_id, :is_allowed => false)
This works to create the assignment, except the "is_allowed" field gets set to it's default of "true". This code works for me (in the Permission model, hence the self reference)
PermissionAssignment.find_or_create_by_permission_id_and_role_id(:permission_id => self.id, :role_id => role_id, :is_allowed => false)
It's more verbose, unfortunately, but it works. The only problem that I still notice is that the object that is returned has no id assigned (the record does get created in the database, however, but if I wanted to update any more attributes I wouldn't be able to without the id). Don't know if that's a separate issue or not.
Rails 3.0.4 here with Postgres 8.4
You cannot pass in other fields like that as Rails will assume they are options for the find. Instead, you will need to make your method call longer:
user.read_entries.find_or_create_by_entry_id_and_read(entry.id, false)
Or alternatively use a shorter, custom syntax for that.
For your final example, my thoughts are that Rails will take the second argument and use that as options. Other than that, I am not sure.