I have a Rails app where I have a Unit model and Status model. Status has_many units and Unit belongs_to Status.
I wrote a scope on Unit to find all of the Units with a specific Status, "In Service" like so:
scope :in_service, lambda { where(status_id: Status.find_by_unit_status("In Service").id)}
This allows me to call Unit.in_service.count to get a count of all Units that are In Service.
But what I really want to do is write a scope that will allow me to scope out all Units with a Status of In Service, At Post, and At Station to get an accurate view of Units since these other two Statuses are considering the Unit to be available.
I'm not sure how I would write something like this. Where the scope contains multiple conditions or data fields.
Can anyone lend a hand?
Update
I tried writing a class method called available like this:
def self.available
Unit.where(status_id: Status.find_by_unit_status("In Service").id)
.where(status_id: Status.find_by_unit_status("At Post").id)
.where(status_id: Status.find_by_unit_status("At Station").id)
end
I'm not sure if this method even is what I'm looking for since I want to find Units with each of these statuses. I think what I just wrote might be constraining the method to where the Unit must have all of these statuses.
You've got a couple things going on here. First if you want to find all units where the status is one of many, you'll need to pass that as an array like so:
scope :in_service, lambda { where(status_id: Status.where(unit_status: ["In Service", "At Post", "At Station"]).map(&:id))}
Second, in your updated method example, you're chaining a bunch of where clauses together, which will result in each one joined with an AND.
While creating an app in Laravel 4 after reading T. Otwell's book on good design patterns in Laravel I found myself creating repositories for every table on the application.
I ended up with the following table structure:
Students: id, name
Courses: id, name, teacher_id
Teachers: id, name
Assignments: id, name, course_id
Scores (acts as a pivot between students and assignments): student_id, assignment_id, scores
I have repository classes with find, create, update and delete methods for all of these tables. Each repository has an Eloquent model which interacts with the database. Relationships are defined in the model per Laravel's documentation: http://laravel.com/docs/eloquent#relationships.
When creating a new course, all I do is calling the create method on the Course Repository. That course has assignments, so when creating one, I also want to create an entry in the score's table for each student in the course. I do this through the Assignment Repository. This implies the assignment repository communicates with two Eloquent models, with the Assignment and Student model.
My question is: as this app will probably grow in size and more relationships will be introduced, is it good practice to communicate with different Eloquent models in repositories or should this be done using other repositories instead (I mean calling other repositories from the Assignment repository) or should it be done in the Eloquent models all together?
Also, is it good practice to use the scores table as a pivot between assignments and students or should it be done somewhere else?
I am finishing up a large project using Laravel 4 and had to answer all of the questions you are asking right now. After reading all of the available Laravel books over at Leanpub, and tons of Googling, I came up with the following structure.
One Eloquent Model class per datable table
One Repository class per Eloquent Model
A Service class that may communicate between multiple Repository classes.
So let's say I'm building a movie database. I would have at least the following following Eloquent Model classes:
Movie
Studio
Director
Actor
Review
A repository class would encapsulate each Eloquent Model class and be responsible for CRUD operations on the database. The repository classes might look like this:
MovieRepository
StudioRepository
DirectorRepository
ActorRepository
ReviewRepository
Each repository class would extend a BaseRepository class which implements the following interface:
interface BaseRepositoryInterface
{
public function errors();
public function all(array $related = null);
public function get($id, array $related = null);
public function getWhere($column, $value, array $related = null);
public function getRecent($limit, array $related = null);
public function create(array $data);
public function update(array $data);
public function delete($id);
public function deleteWhere($column, $value);
}
A Service class is used to glue multiple repositories together and contains the real "business logic" of the application. Controllers only communicate with Service classes for Create, Update and Delete actions.
So when I want to create a new Movie record in the database, my MovieController class might have the following methods:
public function __construct(MovieRepositoryInterface $movieRepository, MovieServiceInterface $movieService)
{
$this->movieRepository = $movieRepository;
$this->movieService = $movieService;
}
public function postCreate()
{
if( ! $this->movieService->create(Input::all()))
{
return Redirect::back()->withErrors($this->movieService->errors())->withInput();
}
// New movie was saved successfully. Do whatever you need to do here.
}
It's up to you to determine how you POST data to your controllers, but let's say the data returned by Input::all() in the postCreate() method looks something like this:
$data = array(
'movie' => array(
'title' => 'Iron Eagle',
'year' => '1986',
'synopsis' => 'When Doug\'s father, an Air Force Pilot, is shot down by MiGs belonging to a radical Middle Eastern state, no one seems able to get him out. Doug finds Chappy, an Air Force Colonel who is intrigued by the idea of sending in two fighters piloted by himself and Doug to rescue Doug\'s father after bombing the MiG base.'
),
'actors' => array(
0 => 'Louis Gossett Jr.',
1 => 'Jason Gedrick',
2 => 'Larry B. Scott'
),
'director' => 'Sidney J. Furie',
'studio' => 'TriStar Pictures'
)
Since the MovieRepository shouldn't know how to create Actor, Director or Studio records in the database, we'll use our MovieService class, which might look something like this:
public function __construct(MovieRepositoryInterface $movieRepository, ActorRepositoryInterface $actorRepository, DirectorRepositoryInterface $directorRepository, StudioRepositoryInterface $studioRepository)
{
$this->movieRepository = $movieRepository;
$this->actorRepository = $actorRepository;
$this->directorRepository = $directorRepository;
$this->studioRepository = $studioRepository;
}
public function create(array $input)
{
$movieData = $input['movie'];
$actorsData = $input['actors'];
$directorData = $input['director'];
$studioData = $input['studio'];
// In a more complete example you would probably want to implement database transactions and perform input validation using the Laravel Validator class here.
// Create the new movie record
$movie = $this->movieRepository->create($movieData);
// Create the new actor records and associate them with the movie record
foreach($actors as $actor)
{
$actorModel = $this->actorRepository->create($actor);
$movie->actors()->save($actorModel);
}
// Create the director record and associate it with the movie record
$director = $this->directorRepository->create($directorData);
$director->movies()->associate($movie);
// Create the studio record and associate it with the movie record
$studio = $this->studioRepository->create($studioData);
$studio->movies()->associate($movie);
// Assume everything worked. In the real world you'll need to implement checks.
return true;
}
So what we're left with is a nice, sensible separation of concerns. Repositories are only aware of the Eloquent model they insert and retrieve from the database. Controllers don't care about repositories, they just hand off the data they collect from the user and pass it to the appropriate service. The service doesn't care how the data it receives is saved to the database, it just hands off the relevant data it was given by the controller to the appropriate repositories.
Keep in mind you're asking for opinions :D
Here's mine:
TL;DR: Yes, that's fine.
You're doing fine!
I do exactly what you are doing often and find it works great.
I often, however, organize repositories around business logic instead of having a repo-per-table. This is useful as it's a point of view centered around how your application should solve your "business problem".
A Course is a "entity", with attributes (title, id, etc) and even other entities (Assignments, which have their own attributes and possibly entities).
Your "Course" repository should be able to return a Course and the Courses' attributes/Assignments (including Assignment).
You can accomplish that with Eloquent, luckily.
(I often end up with a repository per table, but some repositories are used much more than others, and so have many more methods. Your "courses" repository may be much more full-featured than your Assignments repository, for instance, if your application centers more around Courses and less about a Courses' collection of Assignments).
The tricky part
I often use repositories inside of my repositories in order to do some database actions.
Any repository which implements Eloquent in order to handle data will likely return Eloquent models. In that light, it's fine if your Course model uses built-in relationships in order to retrieve or save Assignments (or any other use case). Our "implementation" is built around Eloquent.
From a practical point of view, this makes sense. We're unlikely to change data sources to something Eloquent can't handle (to a non-sql data source).
ORMS
The trickiest part of this setup, for me at least, is determing if Eloquent is actually helping or harming us. ORMs are a tricky subject, because while they help us greatly from a practical point of view, they also couple your "business logic entities" code with the code doing the data retrieval.
This sort of muddles up whether your repository's responsibility is actually for handling data or handling the retrieval / update of entities (business domain entities).
Furthermore, they act as the very objects you pass to your views. If you later have to get away from using Eloquent models in a repository, you'll need to make sure the variables passed to your views behave in the same way or have the same methods available, otherwise changing your data sources will roll into changing your views, and you've (partially) lost the purpose of abstracting your logic out to repositories in the first place - the maintainability of your project goes down as.
Anyway, these are somewhat incomplete thoughts. They are, as stated, merely my opinion, which happens to be the result of reading Domain Driven Design and watching videos like "uncle bob's" keynote at Ruby Midwest within the last year.
I like to think of it in terms of what my code is doing and what it is responsible for, rather than "right or wrong". This is how I break apart my responsibilities:
Controllers are the HTTP layer and route requests through to the underlying apis (aka, it controls the flow)
Models represent the database schema, and tell the application what the data looks like, what relationships it may have, as well as any global attributes that may be necessary (such as a name method for returning a concatenated first and last name)
Repositories represent the more complex queries and interactions with the models (I don't do any queries on model methods).
Search engines - classes that help me build complex search queries.
With this in mind, it makes sense every time to use a repository (whether you create interfaces.etc. is a whole other topic). I like this approach, because it means I know exactly where to go when I'm needing to do certain work.
I also tend to build a base repository, usually an abstract class which defines the main defaults - basically CRUD operations, and then each child can just extend and add methods as necessary, or overload the defaults. Injecting your model also helps this pattern to be quite robust.
Think of Repositories as a consistent filing cabinet of your data (not just your ORMs). The idea is that you want to grab data in a consistent simple to use API.
If you find yourself just doing Model::all(), Model::find(), Model::create() you probably won't benefit much from abstracting away a repository. On the other hand, if you want to do a bit more business logic to your queries or actions, you may want to create a repository to make an easier to use API for dealing with data.
I think you were asking if a repository would be the best way to deal with some of the more verbose syntax required to connect related models. Depending on the situation, there are a few things I may do:
Hanging a new child model off of a parent model (one-one or one-many), I would add a method to the child repository something like createWithParent($attributes, $parentModelInstance) and this would just add the $parentModelInstance->id into the parent_id field of the attributes and call create.
Attaching a many-many relationship, I actually create functions on the models so that I can run $instance->attachChild($childInstance). Note that this requires existing elements on both side.
Creating related models in one run, I create something that I call a Gateway (it may be a bit off from Fowler's definitions). Way I can call $gateway->createParentAndChild($parentAttributes, $childAttributes) instead of a bunch of logic that may change or that would complicate the logic that I have in a controller or command.
I have an example Action in a Controller.
def some_action
product = Product.new
product.name = "namepro"
if product.save
client.update_attribute(:product_id,product.id)
end
end
How to add transactions for this code? I try with this example code:
def some_action
**transaction do**
product = Product.new
product.name = "namepro"
if product.save
client.update_attribute(:product_create,Time.now)
end
**end**
end
But it produces this error:
undefined method `transaction'
I read about using transactions in Controllers is a bad practice but I don't know why is the reason (http://markdaggett.com/blog/2011/12/01/transactions-in-rails/)
In the example, if product has been created and saved and the client update fail... Rails must not do nothing.
thanks.
You can use a transaction in a controller if you really want to. As you noted, it's bad practice, but if you want to do it, just call Product.transaction do instead of transaction do. transaction is a class method on ActiveRecord::Base, so you need to call it on an ActiveRecord-derived class. Any model class in your application will do (nit-picking caveat: if you are connecting to different databases for different models, that may not be true...but you're probably not doing that).
The reason this is a bad practice is that it doesn't properly separate concerns according to the MVC paradigm. Your controller shouldn't be so concerned with your data persistence implementation. A better approach would be to add a method to Product. Maybe something like this:
def save_and_update_create_time
transaction do
if save
client.update_attribute(:product_create, Time.now)
end
end
end
Then instead of calling product.save in your controller, call product.save_and_update_client_create_time. You may need to pass client to that method too; it's unclear from your code where client comes from. If it's an attribute on product, then the method above should work.
There are better, more Railsy ways to do this, too, especially if a product knows about its client without needing any controller data. Then you can just use an after_save callback, like this (add to Product class):
after_save :update_client
private
def update_client(product)
product.client.update_attribute(:product_create, Time.now)
end
Then every time a Product is saved, the field on the associated client will be updated. You'll possibly have to introduce some code to check for the existence of a client first.
The benefit to using callbacks, besides cleaner code, is that the entire callback chain runs in a single transaction along with the save; you don't need to create the transaction manually. You can read more about callbacks in the Rails documentation.
On my site, moderators can flag spammy comments. When these comments are flagged, they get quarantined so they no longer appear in regular views, though they can still be seen in the administrative control panel. At the moment, I exclude them from regular views like so:
#comments = Comment.where(:flagged => false)
I do this in every controller that has comments in it, of which there are many. I get the feeling that there's a cleaner way to handle this in Rails. Perhaps somewhere in the comments model I can specify that when querying for comments, only retrieve those that aren't flagged. If so, how is that done? And even if that's not possible, is there some other way to dry this code?
u can use a default scope
default_scope where(:flagged => false)
see http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/Base/default_scope/class
the default scope can be ignored using unscoped. See http://apidock.com/rails/ActiveRecord/Base/unscoped/class
i would prefer using a scope rather a default scope since i dont have to override it when all the records are needed. Depends upon the frequency of fetching all/unflagged records.
Make a scope (named 'clean' for this example):
class Comment < ActiveRecord
scope :clean, where(:flagged => false)
end
Then use:
#comments = Comment.clean
For future-proofing, you may may want to add a class method called default_view which just calls clean and use that instead. As your 'default' needs change, just modify the default_view method.
First, some background:
I have a Company model, a Project model and a Task model. A Project belongs to a company and a Task belongs_to a Project.
The Project model holds several attributes: company_id, date. These attributes uniquely identify a project
I am letting the users create a task by API by POSTing to a URL that contains the details necessary to identify the Project. For example:
POST /projects/<comnpany_name>/<date>/tasks/
In order to make life easier for the users, in case there is no project with the given details, I'd like to create the project on the fly by the given details, and then to create the task and assign it to the project.
...And my problem is:
When there is a problem to create the project, let's say that the company name is not valid, what is the right way to return the error message and communicate to the user?
I'll explain what I mean: I added a create_by_name_and_company_name method to the Project:
def self.create_by_name_and_company_name(name, company_name)
if company = Company.find_by_name(company_name)
project = Project.create(company_id: company.id,
name: name)
else # cannot create this project, trying to communicate the error
project = Project.new(name: name)
project.errors.add(:company, 'must have a valid name')
end
company
end
I was hoping that by returning an unsaved Company object, with errors set, will be a good way communicate the error (This is similar to how rails work when there's a validation error).
The problem is that when calling valid? on the company object, it removed the error I wrote there and adds the regular validation errors (in this case, company can't be blank).
And a bonus question...
And there is a conceptual problem as well: since I'm creating a model by providing parameters that are being used to create the actual attributes, they doesn't always map nicely to the errors[:attr] hash. In this case it is not so bad and I'm using the company field for the company name parameter, but I guess this can get messier when the parameters provided to the create method are less similar to the model attributes.
So what is the preferred approach to tackle that problem? Is there something basically wrong with that approach? if so, what is the preferred approach?
About overriding the default rails validation error message, you need to write your validation constraint like this:
validates_presence_of :name, :message => "must be a valid name"
I figure that it is best to avoid such nesting and stick to a shallower API.