I have tables 'orders' and 'items' with has_many association in the model.
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
Item consists of 'quantity' field, and Order consists of 'quantity_sum' field to track sum of associated items quantity.
For eg:
Order 1 : name='Toms shopping cart', quantity_sum=12
Item 1 : name='T-shirt', quantity=10
Itme 2 : name='Shoes', quantity=2
I have been looking for a way so that whenever new item is added/edited/deleted, the field 'quantity_sum' of Order gets updated automatically. Presently I have been using after_save method in Item, to update 'quantity_sum' field of Order.
Is there any other neat way of doing this besides 'after_save' ???
Similar to "counter_cache" for tracking count of associations, does rails have support for automatically keeping track of sum of some fields in the association?
Thanks
Remove the quantity_sum field from your table and add a quantity_sum method to the order class that sums up the quantity_values
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items
def quantity_sum
self.items.sum(:quantity)
end
end
Should do the trick. All you then need to do is remove any code you may have that updates the quantity_sum field. You will find that because the name of the method is the same as the field name (That you must not forget to delete) you won't have to refactor any of your code that makes use of it.
Obviously you need to be careful not to use this field unneccesarily like in a list of all orders in the system as this will be quite heavy on the database. O.K for a few hundred records but you'll notice a performance issue over thousands of orders.
Don't forget to remove that quantity_sum field from the order table
I think that this gem is what your'e looking for.
Look under "Totaling instead of counting" in the docs.
It should allow you to to something like this:
class Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :order
counter_culture :order, :column_name => 'quantity_sum', :delta_column => 'quantity'
end
class Order < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items
end
Related
I am currently making a website that runs on Ruby on Rails. I am facing some issues while I was trying to join two tables, Rates and Locations, that I have with two different attributes name.
Rates: id rater_id rateable_id (and a few more attributes in this table)
Locations: id title body user_id (and a few more attributes in this table)
Here is the query that I am trying to do in SQL.
SELECT *
FROM rates, locations
WHERE rates.rater_id = locations.user_id AND rates.rateable_id = locations.id
I have read the official active record documents that provided by rubyonrails.org. I have tried doing these, but it does not work. Here is the code that I am trying to implant in app\controllers\users_controller.rb
#join_rating = Rate.joins(:locations).where("rates.rateable_id = locations.id AND rates.rater_id = locations.id")
#all_rating = #all_rating.where(rater_id: #user)
#count_all_rating = #all_rating.count
#join_rating, is trying to join the attributes with different names.
#all_rating, is trying to filter which location to show using the user ID
#join_rating, is trying to calculate the total numbers of locations that are rated by the user
Assume that everything is setup correctly and the only error is in the query that I am trying to do, how should I rewrite the statement so that I am able to show the locations that the user has rated using #all_rating.
Thank you!
A few points:
When in ActiveRecord you're starting a statement with the Rate class, it means the result is going to be a collection of Rate objects. So if you're trying to show locations, you should start with a Location class.
#locations_user_rated = Location.joins('INNER JOIN rates ON
rates.rateable_id = locations.id').where('rates.rater_id' => #user)
And if your ActiveRecord associations are well defined, you could simply do:
#locations_user_rated = Location.joins(:rates).where('rates.rater_id' => #user)
"Well defined" simply means you'll need to do something like the following. Note that I am not sure I understand your model relationships correctly. I assume below that every location has multiple rates, and that the reason your Rate model has the field called rateable_id instead of a location_id is because you want :rateable to be polymorphic. This means you probably also have a rateable_type field in rates table.
class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :rates, as: :rateable
end
class Rate < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :rateable, polymorphic: true
end
If this polymorphism is not the case, things should actually be simpler, and I highly recommend that you follow Rails's conventions and simply name the relationship field location_id on your Rate model instead of rateable_id. Then you can do:
class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :rates
end
class Rate < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :location
end
If still you are not convinced about the field name, you can customize things and do:
class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :rates, foreign_key: :rateable_id
end
class Rate < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :location, foreign_key: :rateable_id
end
You can find more about how to customize associations here, and here.
I highly recommend taking advantage of ActiveRecord's has_many, belongs_to, and has_many through: functionality.
If you set up a model for each of these tables, with the correct relationships:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :ratings, foreign_key: :rater_id
has_many :rated_locations, through: ratings, class_name: Location.name, source: :rater
end
class Rating < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :rater, class_name: User.name
belongs_to :location
end
class Location < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :ratings
end
Then to access the locaitons that a user has rated, you just call
user.rated_locations
I have the following table structure
manufacturers --> products ---> available_sizes_products <-- sizes
and the following models
class Manufacturer < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :products
end
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :sizes, :through => :available_sizes_products
has_many :available_sizes_products
end
class AvailableProductSize < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :sizes
belongs_to :products
end
class Size < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :products, :through => :available_sizes_products
has_many :available_sizes_products
end
I need to get a unique list of manufacturers, that have products in size "XL" or "L" for example.I'm getting lost in the chaining of joins etc.
class Manufacturer < ActiveRecord::Base
def self.with_sizes(sizes=[])
#sizes = Sizes.find(sizes)
...
end
end
Can someone help me with that ? Trying to do the Rails 4 way rather than drop down to SQL, since I need the query to run on several DBS
Thanks
First of all you have to use single form of noun in belongs_to expression.
And for the query try this one:
Manufacturer.includes(:products).where(products: (size: "XL"))
I use "includes" to avoid N+1 query. Otherwise it will send two queries: one for Manufacturers and one for products. Write back, if this one doesn't fit your need.
EDIT
BTW, if you want to use exactly joining, write joins instead of includes.
Everything is here:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#joining-tables
and here:
http://guides.rubyonrails.org/active_record_querying.html#eager-loading-associations
After going through the docs for joins
this is what worked :
Manufacturer.joins(products: :sizes).where(sizes: {id:ids}).distinct
This Rails way returns the model correctly.
I am working with a has_many through for the first time, and despite a lot of reading here and in the guide I am not understanding the correct way to access attributes on the through table. My tables are the same as this example from another post.
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :collaborators
has_many :users, :through => :collaborators
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :collaborators
has_many :products, :through => :collaborators
end
class Collaborator < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :product
belongs_to :user
end
Assuming that the collaborators table has additional attributes, say hours_spent, what is the correct way to find the hours_spent from the collaborator table for a particular user and product?
When I have found my users via the product, and am iterating over them as in
#product.users.each do |user|
This seems to work
user.collaborator[0].hours_spent
I get the correct value, but since there should only be one collaborator record for each User/Product pair, the index is throwing me off, making me think I’m doing something wrong.
Thank you for reading!
EDIT
Perhaps I am not getting the has_many through concept. Maybe a MySQL example would help.
What I was thinking is that if I did
SELECT * FROM collaborators where user_id = 1;
I would expect a set (zero or more) as the result. Similarly
SELECT * FROM collaborators where product_id = 1;
would also give me a set, but
SELECT * FROM collaborators where user_id = 1 and product_id = 1;
would give at most 1 row.
If I am understanding properly, all 3 queries return a set. So I guess I need some kind of uniqueness constraint, but that would have to be a compound key of sorts, on both of the belongs to keys. Is that even possible? Is there a structure that better models this?
Thanks so much for the quick and helpful responses!
There may be a single database row per pair, but when considering a single user, that user can be associated to many products, so a user can have many rows in the collaborators table. Similarly, when considering a single product, that product can be associated to many users, so a product can have many rows in the collaborators table.
Also, instead of using user.collaborators[0].hours_spent, use user.collaborators.first.try(:hours_spent) (which may return null), if you only want the first collaborator's hours spent.
If a single user can only have one single product and a single product can only have a single user, then switch the has_many's to has_one's for everything.
Update: The preceding is the answer to the original question which has since been clarified via comments. See comments for detail and see comments on other answer by Peter.
Perhaps you should use has_and_belongs_to_many. If your Collaborator is used only to make link between User and Product without having more fields.
class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :users
end
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_and_belongs_to_many :products
end
The beetween migration would be:
class CreateUsersProducts < ActiveRecord::Migration
def change
create_table "users_products", :id => false do |t|
t.integer :user_id
t.integer :product_id
end
end
end
After implementing this, what I found was that I think I had the correct relationships setup, I had to use the has_many :though as users could have many products, and it needed to be :through because there are additional attributes on the collaborator table. The sticking point was how to get there to only be a single Collaborator record for each user/product pair, and then how do I guarantee I got it. And to this point the answer I've found is it has to be done in code.
To make sure there is only a single record for each pair, I used
class Collaborator < ActiveRecord::Base
validates :product_id, :presence => true, :uniqueness => {:scope => [:user_id], :message => "This is a duplicate join"}
And then to make doubly sure I'm finding the right record, I have a scope
scope :collaboration_instance, lambda {|p_id, u_id| where("collaborations.product_id = ? && collaborations.user_id = ?", p_id, u_id)}
If someone has a more elegant solution, or just wants to improve this one, please post and I will change yours to the selected answer.
I have three models:
class Update
attr_accessible :object_id, :object_type
belongs_to :object, :polymorphic
default_scope order('created_at DESC')
end
class Document
has_many :updates, as: :object
end
class Report
has_many :updates, as: :object
end
Now, using sql or the Active Record query interface I want to be able to grab pick out the lastest Update for each object.
I was thinking that I would do something like this:
Update.group(:object_id).group(:object_type)
That does indeed give me only one update per object, but it is not always the latest update and I am not sure why.
Does group just select a random record from the group? Is there a simple way to ensure that the latest update gets selected?
Using rails 3/3.1 I want to store invoices with their items (and later more associations like payments, etc…).
So in a first approach I set up the models like this:
class Invoice < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :invoice_items
end
class InvoiceItem < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :invoice
end
And the routes likes this:
resources :invoices do
resources :invoice_items
end
I chose InvoiceItem instead of Item because I already have a model named Item and I somehow want to namespace the model to invoices. But this name has the huge disadvantage that one has to use invoice.invoice_items instead of a intuitive invoice.items. Also the generated url helpers look real ugly, for example "new_invoice_invoice_item_path(invoice)" (notice the double invoice_invoice).
So I changed to namespaced models like this:
class Invoice < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :items, :class_name => "Invoice::Item"
end
class Invoice::Item < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :invoice
end
And the routes likes this:
resources :invoices do
resources :items, :module => "invoice"
end
Now the assocation is named nicely and also the url helpers look pretty. But I can't use dynamic urls (ex. [:new, invoice, :item]) anymore, because the controller is set to "invoice_item" instead of "invoice/item".
I wonder how other people solve this problem and what I'm doing wrong. Or is this simply a bug in rails 3.0.7/ 3.1.rc?
EDIT:
Sorry, I seems I didn't correctly express my concern. My model Item is not related to Invoice::Item. Order::Item is also not related to Item nor Invoice::Item. An Invoice::Item can only belong to one invoice. An Order::Item can only belong to an Order. I need to namespace - but why doesn't rails properly support namespacing out of the box? Or what am I doing wrong with namespacing?
Corin
If an order item and an invoice item are not the same object in the real world then I would name them differently rather than trying to namespace, for example OrderItem and InvoiceItem - this will keep things clearer as your codebase grows and avoid the need to make sure you use the right namespace everywhere you reference an Item.