I've been trying to make this query work for the last couple of hours, but I can't. So I hope someone can help.
Here's the error:
Mysql::Error: Unknown column 'network_id' in 'where clause': SELECT networks.* FROM networks WHERE (network_id = 1,2)
Here are my models:
class Network < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :customer
has_many :user_network_relations
class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :network, :dependent=>:destroy
accepts_nested_attributes_for :network
class UserNetworkRelation < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :network
accepts_nested_attributes_for :network
controller
#user = User.find(params[:id])
#user_approved = UserNetworkRelation.find(:all,:conditions => ['user_id = ? and status =? ', #user, "approved"])
#networks = Network.find(:all,:conditions => ['network_id = ?',#user_approved])
#user_networks = Customer.find(#networks)
Any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance!
The error is in this line:
#networks = Network.find(:all,:conditions => ['network_id = ?',#user_approved])
You are explicitly telling ActiveRecord that you want to restrict the column network_id which obviously doesn't exist. Probably you meant the id column. The correct line could read as follows:
#networks = Network.where(:id => #user_approved).all
or equivalently
#networks = Network.where('id = ?', #user_approved).all
Note that in my example, I used the new ActiveModel / AREL syntax of Rails 3. You used the deprecated (but still supported) Syntax of Rails 2. You should switch to the new syntax as it allows you to chain queries which is mightier and much more readable. See the documentation on how to use the new AREL syntax.
Related
I'm working in rails. My model is like this:
class Topic < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :topics, dependent: :delete_all
belongs_to :parent, foreign_key: 'topic_id', class_name: 'Topic'
has_many :contents
validates :name, uniqueness: true, presence: true
end
So I have a topic that can have many "sub-topics". Every sub-topic can have many sub-topics, indefinitely. I'm trying to make a method that returns me all "leaf" topics. A leaf topic is a topic with no sub-topics.
def self.leafs
where(???)
end
I can't formulate this in active record logic, so actually I use this query:
Topic.find_by_sql("SELECT * FROM topics WHERE id NOT IN (SELECT t.topic_id FROM topics t WHERE topic_id IS NOT NULL)")
How can I write this in an active record way?
Try this:
child_ids_with_topic_id = where.not(topic_id: nil).pluck(:topic_id)
where.not(id: child_ids_with_topic_id)
def self.leafs
topics.where("topic_id IS NOT NULL")
end
ActiveRecord 4.0 and above adds where.not so you can do this:
scope :leafs, -> topics.where.not(topic_id: nil)
scope :without_topics, includes(:topics).where(:topics => { :id => nil })
Although i am not sure but i have tried using this Rails 3 finding parents which have no child
scope :leafs, joins("left join topics as sub_topics sub_topics.topic_id = topics.id").where("topics.topic_id is null")
I've got the following models:
class Notification < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :notificatable, polymorphic: true
end
class BounceEmailNotification < ActiveRecord::Bas
has_one :notification, :as => :notificatable, :dependent => :destroy
end
class UserNotifierEmailNotification < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :notification, :as => :notificatable, :dependent => :destroy
end
As you can see, a notification can be of type "bounce email notification" or "user notifier email notification". The BounceEmailNotification model has a event string attribute. What if I want retrieve all user notifier email notifications and all bounce email notifications which have a specific event value, ordered by created_at?
Something like this (using squeel):
(Notification.joins{ notificatable(BounceEmailNotification) }.where('bounce_email_notifications.event' => 'error') + Notification.joins { notificatable(UserNotifierEmailNotification) }).sort_by { |n| n.created_at }
will work, but I don't want to use Ruby to order the notifications. What can I do? Thanks
Try this.
Notification.joins('left outer join bounce_email_notifications on notifications.notificatable_id = bounce_email_notifications.id and notificatable_type = "BounceEmailNotification"').
where("bounce_email_notifications.event = ? or notificatable_type = ?",'error',UserNotifierEmailNotification.to_s).
order('notifications.created_at')
This is using active record 3.2 but I guess it should work in rails 3.
I have not used squeel cant comment much on how to use it with squeel but this can give you a brief idea.
In squeel I came up with something like this ( NOT TESTED) created by using squeel docs
Notification.notificatable{notable(BounceEmailNotification).outer}. where{
{ ('bounce_email_notifications.event'=>'error') | (:notificatable_type=>UserNotifierEmailNotification.to_s) }
Conceptual steps
left join on the bounce_email_notifications to get all bounce_email_notifications and and non bounce_email_notifications notification in result
check if the bounce_email_notifications.event = event
or
notificatable_type = 'UserNotifierEmailNotification' for all UserNotifierEmailNotification records
sort the records by notifications.created at
Hope this helps.
I've implemented "following" function. Showing "people user A is following" was simple, but showing "people who are following user A" is giving me troubles.
I have follow_links, which have id, user_id, and follow_you_id column. When user A begins following user B, the columns will be like (user_id = A, follow_you_id = B).
To show users that A(#user) is following, I can simply do
#follow_yous = #user.follow_yous
But I'm not sure how to show users who are following A(#user)
To do this, I first found all the related links.
#follow_links = FollowLink.where(:follow_you_id => #user.id)
Now I thought I could just do #follow_mes = #follow_links.users, but it says user is an undefined method. So I guess I can either call user.follow_yous or follow_you.users.
My next approach was
#follow_links = FollowLink.where(:follow_you_id => #user.id)
#follow_mes = User.where(:id => #user.id, :include => #follow_links)
I intended to find all the User objects that had the provided #follow_links objects, but I think the syntax was wrong. I couldn't find a decent solution after a bit of research. I'd appreciate any help.
Update:
FollowLink model
belongs_to :user
belongs_to :follow_you, :class_name => "User"
You can use joins like this:
#users = User.joins(:follow_links).where(:follow_links => { :follow_you_id => #user.id })
you can use following:
#follow_links = FollowLink.where(:follow_you_id => #user.id)
#follow_links.collect(&:user) # :user should be the name of your relation to user in your followlink model
=> [User1, User2,...]
I have the following code (note the includes and the .each):
subscribers = []
mailgroup.mailgroup_members.opted_to_receive_email.includes(:roster_contact, :roster_info).each { |m|
subscribers << { :EmailAddress => m.roster_contact.member_email,
:Name => m.roster_contact.member_name,
:CustomFields => [ { :Key => 'gender',
:Value => m.roster_info.gender.present? ? m.roster_info.gender : 'X'
} ]
} if m.roster_contact.member_email.present?
}
subscribers
Correspondingly, I see the following in my logs (i.e. select * from ROSTER_INFO ... IN (...)):
SELECT `ROSTER_INFO`.* FROM `ROSTER_INFO` WHERE `ROSTER_INFO`.`ID` IN ('1450', '1000', '1111')
Yet immediately after that there are select * from ROSTER_INFO for each ID already specified in the IN list of the previous query:
RosterInfo Load (84.8ms) SELECT `ROSTER_INFO`.* FROM `ROSTER_INFO` WHERE `ROSTER_INFO`.`ID` = '1450' LIMIT 1
RosterInfo Load (59.2ms) SELECT `ROSTER_INFO`.* FROM `ROSTER_INFO` WHERE `ROSTER_INFO`.`ID` = '1000' LIMIT 1
RosterInfo Load (56.8ms) SELECT `ROSTER_INFO`.* FROM `ROSTER_INFO` WHERE `ROSTER_INFO`.`ID` = '1111' LIMIT 1
If select * had already been done on ROSTER_INFO on all IDs of interest (IN (...)), why is another select * being done again for each of the same IDs? Doesn't ActiveRecord already know all the ROSTER_INFO columns for each ID?
(Meanwhile, there are no individual queries for ROSTER_CONTACT, yet if I remove :roster_contact from the includes method, then ROSTER_INFO is not queried again, but ROSTER_CONTACT is.)
RosterInfo model (abridged)
class RosterInfo < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'ID'
end
RosterContact model (abridged)
class RosterContact < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'ID'
has_many :mailgroup_members, foreign_key: 'rosterID'
has_many :mailgroups, through: :mailgroup_members
has_one :roster_info, foreign_key: 'ID' # can use this line
#belongs_to :roster_info, foreign_key: 'ID' # or this with no difference
def member_name # I added this method to this
roster_info.member_name # question only *after* having
end # figured out the problem.
end
RosterWeb model (abridged)
class RosterWeb < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'ID'
end
Mailgroup model (abridged)
class Mailgroup < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'ID'
has_many :mailgroup_members, foreign_key: 'mailCatID'
has_one :mailing_list, foreign_key: :legacy_id
end
MailgroupMember model (abridged)
class MailgroupMember < ActiveRecord::Base
self.primary_key = 'ID'
belongs_to :mailgroup, foreign_key: 'mailCatID'
belongs_to :roster_contact, foreign_key: 'rosterID'
belongs_to :roster_info, foreign_key: 'rosterID'
belongs_to :roster_web, foreign_key: 'rosterID'
scope :opted_to_receive_email, joins(:roster_web).where('ROSTER_WEB.receiveEmail=?', 1)
end
The issue turned out to be related to m.roster_contact.member_name -- unfortunately I made member_name a method of roster_contact that itself (indirectly) queried roster_info.member_name. I resolved this by changing the line
:Name => m.roster_contact.member_name,
to directly query roster_info as follows
:Name => m.roster_info.member_name,
I am sorry for the trouble!
I'm going to stick my neck out and say that this is probably an in-flight optimization by your query engine. The 'IN' is typically used to compare large sets of keys, the most efficient way of resolving three keys (assuming ID is the key) would be to retrieve each row by key, as has happened.
class RosterInfo < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :roster_contact, foreign_key: 'ID'
end
class RosterContact < ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :roster_info, foreign_key: 'ID'
end
I don't know what is the premise for having bi-directional has_one, but I suspect it will turn out badly. Probably change one of them to belongs_to. Do the same for the other bi-directional has_one associations.
Another thing is that you are using 'ID' for the foreign_key column, where the usual practice is roster_contact_id or whichever class you are referencing.
Edit:
On closer examination, RosterInfo, RosterContact, RosterWeb look like separate tables for what should be a single record since they are all having the same set of mutual has_one associations. This is something that should be addressed on the schema level, but right now you should be able to drop the has_one associations from one of the three models to solve your immediate problem.
Let's say I have the following classes
class SolarSystem < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :planets
end
class Planet < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :life_supporting, where('distance_from_sun > ?', 5).order('diameter ASC')
end
Planet has a scope life_supporting and SolarSystem has_many :planets. I would like to define my has_many relationship so that when I ask a solar_system for all associated planets, the life_supporting scope is automatically applied. Essentially, I would like solar_system.planets == solar_system.planets.life_supporting.
Requirements
I do not want to change scope :life_supporting in Planet to
default_scope where('distance_from_sun > ?', 5).order('diameter ASC')
I'd also like to prevent duplication by not having to add to SolarSystem
has_many :planets, :conditions => ['distance_from_sun > ?', 5], :order => 'diameter ASC'
Goal
I'd like to have something like
has_many :planets, :with_scope => :life_supporting
Edit: Work Arounds
As #phoet said, it may not be possible to achieve a default scope using ActiveRecord. However, I have found two potential work arounds. Both prevent duplication. The first one, while long, maintains obvious readability and transparency, and the second one is a helper type method who's output is explicit.
class SolarSystem < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :planets, :conditions => Planet.life_supporting.where_values,
:order => Planet.life_supporting.order_values
end
class Planet < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :life_supporting, where('distance_from_sun > ?', 5).order('diameter ASC')
end
Another solution which is a lot cleaner is to simply add the following method to SolarSystem
def life_supporting_planets
planets.life_supporting
end
and to use solar_system.life_supporting_planets wherever you'd use solar_system.planets.
Neither answers the question so I just put them here as work arounds should anyone else encounter this situation.
In Rails 4, Associations have an optional scope parameter that accepts a lambda that is applied to the Relation (cf. the doc for ActiveRecord::Associations::ClassMethods)
class SolarSystem < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :planets, -> { life_supporting }
end
class Planet < ActiveRecord::Base
scope :life_supporting, -> { where('distance_from_sun > ?', 5).order('diameter ASC') }
end
In Rails 3, the where_values workaround can sometimes be improved by using where_values_hash that handles better scopes where conditions are defined by multiple where or by a hash (not the case here).
has_many :planets, conditions: Planet.life_supporting.where_values_hash
In Rails 5, the following code works fine...
class Order
scope :paid, -> { where status: %w[paid refunded] }
end
class Store
has_many :paid_orders, -> { paid }, class_name: 'Order'
end
i just had a deep dive into ActiveRecord and it does not look like if this can be achieved with the current implementation of has_many. you can pass a block to :conditions but this is limited to returning a hash of conditions, not any kind of arel stuff.
a really simple and transparent way to achieve what you want (what i think you are trying to do) is to apply the scope at runtime:
# foo.rb
def bars
super.baz
end
this is far from what you are asking for, but it might just work ;)