Search Results

Search found 676 results on 28 pages for 'polymorphic associations'.

Page 2/28 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Polymorphic urls with singular resources

    - by Brendon Muir
    I'm getting strange output when using the following routing setup: resources :warranty_types do resources :decisions end resource :warranty_review, :only => [] do resources :decisions end I have many warranty_types but only one warranty_review (thus the singular route declaration). The decisions are polymorphically associated with both. I have just a single decisions controller and a single _form.html.haml partial to render the form for a decision. This is the view code: = simple_form_for @decision, :url => [@decision_tree_owner, @decision.becomes(Decision)] do |form| The warranty_type url looks like this (for a new decision): /warranty_types/2/decisions whereas the warranty_review url looks like this: /admin/warranty_review/decisions.1 I think because the warranty_review id has no where to go, it's just getting appended to the end as an extension. Can someone explain what's going on here and how I might be able to fix it? I can work around it by trying to detect for a warranty_review class and substituting @decision_tree_owner with :warranty_review and this generates the correct url, but this is messy. I would have thought that the routing would be smart enough to realise that warranty_review is a singular resource and thus discard the id from the URL. This is Rails 3 by the way :)

    Read the article

  • Rails ActiveResource Associations

    - by brad
    I have some ARes models (see below) that I'm trying to use associations with (which seems to be wholly undocumented and maybe not possible but I thought I'd give it a try) So on my service side, my ActiveRecord object will render something like render :xml => @group.to_xml(:include => :customers) (see generated xml below) The models Group and Customers are HABTM On my ARes side, I'm hoping that it can see the <customers> xml attribute and automatically populate the .customers attribute of that Group object , but the has_many etc methods aren't supported (at least as far as I can tell) So I'm wondering how ARes does it's reflection on the XML to set the attributes of an object. In AR for instance I could create a def customers=(customer_array) and set it myself, but this doesn't seem to work in ARes. One suggestion I found for an "association" is the just have a method def customers Customer.find(:all, :conditions => {:group_id => self.id}) end But this has the disadvantage that it makes a second service call to look up those customers... not cool I'd like my ActiveResource model to see that the customers attribute in the XML and automatically populate my model. Anyone have any experience with this?? # My Services class Customer < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :groups end class Group < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :customer end # My ActiveResource accessors class Customer < ActiveResource::Base; end class Group < ActiveResource::Base; end # XML from /groups/:id?customers=true <group> <domain>some.domain.com</domain> <id type="integer">266</id> <name>Some Name</name> <customers type="array"> <customer> <active type="boolean">true</active> <id type="integer">1</id> <name>Some Name</name> </customer> <customer> <active type="boolean" nil="true"></active> <id type="integer">306</id> <name>Some Other Name</name> </customer> </customers> </group>

    Read the article

  • Rails Fixtures Don't Seem to Support Transitive Associations

    - by Rick Wayne
    So I've got 3 models in my app, connected by HABTM relations: class Member < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :groups end class Group < ActiveRecord::Base has_and_belongs_to_many :software_instances end class SoftwareInstance < ActiveRecord::Base end And I have the appropriate join tables, and use foxy fixtures to load them: -- members.yml -- rick: name: Rick groups: cals -- groups.yml -- cals: name: CALS software_instances: delphi -- software_instances.yml -- delphi: name: No, this is not a joke, someone in our group is still maintaining Delphi apps... And I do a rake db:fixtures:load, and examine the tables. Yep, the join tables groups_members and groups_software_instances have appropriate IDs in, big numbers generated by hashing the fixture names. Yay! And if I run script/console, I can look at rick's groups and see that cals is in there, or cals's software_instances and delphi shows up. (Likewise delphi knows that it's in the group cals.) Yay! But if I look at rick.groups[0].software_instances...nada. []. And, oddly enough, rick.groups[0].id is something like 30 or 10, not 398398439. I've tried swapping around where the association is defined in the fixtures, e.g. -- members.yml -- rick name: rick -- groups.yml -- cals name: CALS members: rick No error, but same result. (Later: Confirmed, same behavior on MySQL. In fact I get the same thing if I take the foxification out and use ERB to directly create the join tables, so: -- license_groups_software_instances -- cals_delphi: group_id: <%= Fixtures.identify 'cals' % software_instance_id: <%= Fixtures.identify 'delphi' $ Before I chuck it all, reject foxy fixtures and all who sail in her and just hand-code IDs...anybody got a suggestion as to why this is happening? I'm currently working in Rails 2.3.2 with sqlite3, this occurs on both OS X and Ubuntu (and I think with MySQL too). TIA, my compadres.

    Read the article

  • rails associations - How would you represent this relationship?

    - by truthSeekr
    Hello All, I am trying to figure out a best way to represent the following relationship. Newspaper-->has_many-->Articles Newspaper-->has_many--->Subscribers Subscribers are allowed to save the articles for their personal page. Two Questions: 1) How would the relationship look like in rails? How would the action 'save' look like? The following using has_many does not seem right to me: ArticleController < ApplicationController def save a = Article.find(101) @user.saved_articles << a end 2) Do I need a join table Saved_Articles that looked like this? Saved_Articles ---------------- user_id, article_id I am not sure how the has_many_through works. any advice is appreciated. thanks

    Read the article

  • RoR associations through or not through?

    - by showFocus
    I have four models that are related to one another, the way I have it setup at the moment is I have to select a county, region and country when entering a new city. class Country < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :regions has_many :counties has_many :cities end class Region < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :country has_many :counties has_many :cities end class County < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :country has_one :region has_many :cities end class City < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :country has_one :region has_one :county end Would it be better to use the :through symbol in the association? So I could say the city: has_one :country, :through => :region Not sure if this is correct, I have read how :through works but I'm not sure if this is the best solution. I am a newbie and while I'm not struggling with the syntax and how things work, it would be good to get opinions on best practices and the way things should be done from some rails wizards! Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Model associations

    - by Kalyan M
    I have two models Library and Book. In my Library model, I have an array - book_ids. The primary key of Book model is ID. How do I create a has_many :books relation in my library model? This is a legacy database we are using with rails. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails - Associations - Automatically setting an association_id for a model which has 2 belongs_to

    - by adam
    I have 3 models class User < ... belongs_to :language has_many :posts end class Post < ... belongs_to :user belongs_to :language end class Language < ... has_many :users has_many :posts end Im going to be creating lots of posts via users and at the same time I have to also specify the language the post was written in, which is always the language associatd with the user i.e. @user.posts.create(:text => "blah", :language_id => @user.language_id) That's fine but the way I set the language doesn't sit well with me. The language will always be that of the users so is there a 'best-practice' way of doing this? I know a little about callbacks and association extensions but not sure of any pitfalls.

    Read the article

  • Find items with belongs_to associations in Rails?

    - by dannymcc
    Hi Everyone, I have a model called Kase each "Case" is assigned to a contact person via the following code: class Kase < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :jobno has_many :notes, :order => "created_at DESC" belongs_to :company # foreign key: company_id belongs_to :person # foreign key in join table belongs_to :surveyor, :class_name => "Company", :foreign_key => "appointedsurveyor_id" belongs_to :surveyorperson, :class_name => "Person", :foreign_key => "surveyorperson_id" I was wondering if it is possible to list on the contacts page all of the kases that that person is associated with. I assume I need to use the find command within the Person model? Maybe something like the following? def index @kases = Person.Kase.find(:person_id) or am I completely misunderstanding everything again? Thanks, Danny EDIT: If I use: @kases= @person.kases I can successfully do the following: <% if @person.kases.empty? %> No Cases Found <% end %> <% if @person.kases %> This person has a case assigned to them <% end %> but how do I output the "jobref" field from the kase table for each record found?

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails Join Table Associations

    - by Eef
    Hey, I have a Ruby on Rails application setup like so: User Model has_and_belongs_to_many :roles Role Model has_many :transactions has_and_belongs_to_many :users Transaction Model belongs_to :role This means that a join table is used called roles_users and it also means that a user can only see the transactions that have been assigned to them through roles, usage example: user = User.find(1) transactions = user.roles.first.transactions This will return the transactions which are associated with the first role assigned to the user. If a user has 2 roles assigned to them, at the moment to get the transactions associated with the second role I would do: transactions = user.roles.last.transactions I am basically trying to figure out a way to setup an association so I can grab the user's transactions via something like this based on the roles defined in the association between the user and roles: user = User.find(1) transactions = user.transactions I am not sure if this is possible? I hope you understand what I am trying to do.

    Read the article

  • LINQ to SQL associations - how to change the value of associated field

    - by HAdes
    I have 2 classes with a LINQ association between them i.e.: Table1: Table2: ID ID Name Description ForiegnID The association here is between Table1.ID - Table2.ForiegnID I need to be able to change the value of Table2.ForiegnID, however I can't and think it is because of the association (as when I remove it, it works). Therefore, does anyone know how I can change the value of the associated field Table2.ForiegnID? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Rails Model for Playlist that can contain tracks and albums using polymorphism

    - by philk
    I struggle to find a model how to store a playlist with different type of items on it in Rails. Consider I have class Track end class Album has_many :tracks end class PlaylistItem belongs_to :playable belongs_to :playlist end class Playable belongs_to :playable, :polymorph => true end class Playlist has_many :playlist_items end I think I can use a polymorphic model "Playable" here since the Playlist can contain Tracks, Albums and maybe in the future also Movies. Also I would like to use STI for Track and Albums since they share some common attributes like title and length but also have totally different attributes. I modeled it like described here but it does not work. Anybody any idea how to model a Playlist that can contain many items of different kind?

    Read the article

  • Rails: How to have dynamic association

    - by Aaron Dufall
    I'll use an example to explain what behaviour I would like to achieve. If you had a project management app and you added a task, but not all the contributors are users of the app. So when you adding contributors to the task you can enter a user name or email address. Here is the part that I'm finding a little tricky. The task model has many contributors which are linked through the user model, but from this point on I want to achieve 2 things. Store the non members email(this would obviously be quite simple) If that email address was to create an account it would then link that user to the task and remove the temporally saved email. This way, when that user creates an account all the related tasks will already be associated with their email. Is this something that i could achieve with a polymorphic association? or is there something else I should be looking at?

    Read the article

  • Running Objects – Associations and Relationships

    - by edurdias
    After the introduction to the Running Objects with the tutorial Movie Database in 2 Minutes (available here), I would like to demonstrate how Running Objects interprets the Associations where we will cover: Direct Association – A reference to another complex object. Aggregation – A collection of another complex object. For those coming with a database perspective, by demonstrating these associations we will also exemplify the underline relationships such as 1 to Many and Many to Many relationships...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Refer to similar associated models with a common name

    - by Horace Loeb
    I have these models: class Bill < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :calls has_many :text_messages end class Call < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :bill end class TextMessage < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :bill end Now, in my domain calls and text messages are both "the same kind of thing" -- i.e., they're both "bill items". So I'd like some_bill.bill_items to return all calls and text messages associated with that bill. What's the best way to do this?

    Read the article

  • Benchmarking ORM associations

    - by barerd
    I am trying to benchmark two cases of self referential many to many as described in datamapper associations. Both cases consist of an Item clss, which may require many other items. In both cases, I required the ruby benchmark library and source file, created two items and benchmarked require/unrequie functions as below: Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("require:") { item_1.require_item item_2, 10 } x.report("unrequire:") { item_1.unrequire_item item_2 } end To be clear, both functions are datamapper add/modify functions like: componentMaps.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity componentMaps.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! and links_to_components.create :component_id => item.id, :quantity => quantity links_to_components.all(:component_id => item.id).destroy! The results are variable and in the range of 0.018001 to 0.022001 for require function in both cases, and 0.006 to 0.01 for unrequire function in both cases. This made me suspicious about the correctness of my test method. Edit I went ahead and compared a "get by primary key case" to a "finding first matching record case" by: (1..10000).each do |i| Item.create :name => "item_#{i}" end Benchmark.bmbm do |x| x.report("Get") { item = Item.get 9712 } x.report("First") { item = Item.first :name => "item_9712" } end where the results were very different like 0 sec compared to 0.0312, as expected. This suggests that the benchmarking works. I wonder whether I benchmarked the two types of associations correctly, and whether a difference between 0.018 and 0.022 sec significant?

    Read the article

  • C++0x and the Lack of Polymorphic Lambdas - Why?

    - by Dominar
    I've been reviewing the draft version of the upcoming C++0x standard. Specifically the section on lambdas, and am confused as to the reasoning for not introducing polymorphic lambdas. I had hoped we could use code such as the following: template<typename Container> void foo(Container c) { for_each(c.begin(),c.end(),[](T& t) { ++t; }); } What were the reasons: Was it the committee ran out of time? That polymorphic lambdas are too hard to implement? Or perhaps that they are seen as not being needed by the PTB?

    Read the article

  • Can I give a different id to define Cakephp model associations?

    - by gacrux
    I have an one to many association in which a Thing can have many Statuses defined as below: Status Model: class Status extends AppModel { var $name = 'Status'; var $belongsTo = array( 'Thing' => array( 'className' => 'Thing', 'foreignKey' => 'thing_id', ); } Thing Model: class Thing extends AppModel { var $name = 'Thing'; var $belongsTo = array( // other associations ); var $hasMany = array( 'Status' => array( 'className' => 'Status', 'foreignKey' => 'thing_id', 'dependent' => false, 'order' => 'datetime DESC', 'limit' => '10', ), // other associations ); } This works OK, but I would like Thing to use a different id to connect to Status. E.g. Thing would use 'id' for all of it's other associations but use 'thing_status_id' for it's Status association. How can I best do this?

    Read the article

  • How can I use a different id field for one of my CakePHP model associations?

    - by gacrux
    I have an one to many association in which a Thing can have many Statuses defined as below: Status Model: class Status extends AppModel { var $name = 'Status'; var $belongsTo = array( 'Thing' => array( 'className' => 'Thing', 'foreignKey' => 'thing_id', ); } Thing Model: class Thing extends AppModel { var $name = 'Thing'; var $belongsTo = array( // other associations ); var $hasMany = array( 'Status' => array( 'className' => 'Status', 'foreignKey' => 'thing_id', 'dependent' => false, 'order' => 'datetime DESC', 'limit' => '10', ), // other associations ); } This works OK, but I would like Thing to use a different id to connect to Status. E.g. Thing would use 'id' for all of it's other associations but use 'thing_status_id' for it's Status association. How can I best do this?

    Read the article

  • Firefox application associations not working

    - by Pavlos G.
    No matter what changes i make to file associations (actions) in the 'Applications' tab in firefox, they're totally ignored. For example, i set .wmv and .avi files to open with 'smplayer' but when i download a file and double-click on it (through the 'Downloads' window), it keeps opening with Totem player. I've tried to delete and recreate mimetypes.rdf but that didn't help. Any ideas on what else should i check?

    Read the article

  • How do I create a polymorphic model with a collection_select?

    - by muxe
    This are my models: class Speaker < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :session, :foreign_key => :session_id, :class_name => :Session belongs_to :speakable, :polymorphic => true end class Session < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :speakers accepts_nested_attributes_for :speakers end class Person < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :speakers, :as => :speakable end class Company < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :speakers, :as => :speakable end What I want to do now is something like this: app/views/sessions/edit.html.erb <% f.fields_for :speakers do |sf| %> <p> <%= sf.label :speaker %><br /> <%= sf.collection_select :speakable, Company.all + Person.all, :id, :full_name %> </p> <% end %> But it is not working because of the polymorphic assignment. How do I approach this problem? EDIT: The Error is: undefined method `base_class' for String:Class with params being: "speaker"=>{"speakable"=>"1063885469", "session_id"=>"1007692731"} The value passed to speakable is the id of the Speaker/Company. Yes, this is the value I specified the collection_select to return, but how can I manage to supply both values (speakable_id and speakable_type) ?

    Read the article

  • Rails - embedded polymorphic comment list + add comment form - example?

    - by odigity
    Hey, all. Working on my first Rails app. I've searched all around - read a bunch of tutorials, articles, and forum posts, watched some screencasts, and I've found a few examples that come close to what I'm trying to do (notably http://railscasts.com/episodes/154-polymorphic-association and ep 196 about nested model forms), but not exactly. I have two models (Podcast and BlogPost) that need to be commentable, and I have a Comment model that is polymorphically related to both. The railscasts above had a very similar example (ep 154), but Ryan used a full set of nested routes, so there were specific templates for adding and editing comments. What I want to do is show the list of comments right on the Podcast or BlogPost page, along with an Add Comment form at the bottom. I don't need a separate add template/route, and I don't need the ability to edit, only delete. This is a pretty common design on the web, but I can't find a Rails example specifically about this pattern. Here's my current understanding: I need routes for the create and delete actions, of course, but there are no templates associated with those. I'm also guessing that the right approach is to create a partial that can be included at the bottom of both the Podcast and BlogPost show template. The logical name for the partial seems to me to be something like _comments.html.haml. I know it's a common convention to have the object passed to the partial be named after the template, but calling the object 'comments' seems to not match my use case, since what I really need to pass is the commentable object (Podcast or BlogPost). So, I guess I'd use the locals option for the render partial call? (:commentable = @podcast). Inside the partial, I could call commentable.comments to get the comments collection, render that with a second partial (this time with the conventional use case, calling the partial _comment.html.haml), then create a form that submits to... what? REST-wise, it should be a POST to the collection, which would be /podcast|blogpost/:id/comments, and I think the helper for that is podcast_comments_path(podcast) if it were a podcast - not sure what to do though, since I'm using polymorphic comments. That would trigger the Comment.create action, which would then need to redirect back to the podcast|blogpost path /podcast|blogpost/:id. It's all a bit overwhelming, which is why I was really hoping to find a screencast or example that specifically implements this design.

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic :has_many, :through as module in Rails 3.1 plugin

    - by JohnMetta
    I've search everywhere for a pointer to this, but can't find one. Basically, I want to do what everyone else wants to do when they create a polymorphic relationship in a :has_many, :through way… but I want to do it in a module. I keep getting stuck and think I must be overlooking something simple. To wit: module ActsPermissive module PermissiveUser def self.included(base) base.extend ClassMethods end module ClassMethods def acts_permissive has_many :ownables has_many :owned_circles, :through => :ownables end end end class PermissiveCircle < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :ownable, :polymorphic => true end end With a migration that looks like this: create_table :permissive_circles do |t| t.string :ownable_type t.integer :ownable_id t.timestamps end The idea, of course, is that whatever loads acts_permissive will be able to have a list of circles that it owns. For simple tests, I have it "should have a list of circles" do user = Factory :user user.owned_circles.should be_an_instance_of Array end which fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array NameError: uninitialized constant User::Ownable I've tried: using :class_name => 'ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle' on the has_many :ownables line, which fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array ActiveRecord::HasManyThroughSourceAssociationNotFoundError: Could not find the source association(s) :owned_circle or :owned_circles in model ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle. Try 'has_many :owned_circles, :through => :ownables, :source => <name>'. Is it one of :ownable? while following the suggestion and setting :source => :ownable fails with Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array ActiveRecord::HasManyThroughAssociationPolymorphicSourceError: Cannot have a has_many :through association 'User#owned_circles' on the polymorphic object 'Ownable#ownable' Which seems to suggest that doing things with a non-polymorphic-through is necessary. So I added a circle_owner class similar to the setup here: module ActsPermissive class CircleOwner < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :permissive_circle belongs_to :ownable, :polymorphic => true end module PermissiveUser def self.included(base) base.extend ClassMethods end module ClassMethods def acts_permissive has_many :circle_owners, :as => :ownable has_many :circles, :through => :circle_owners, :source => :ownable, :class_name => 'ActsPermissive::PermissiveCircle' end end class PermissiveCircle < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :circle_owners end end With a migration: create_table :permissive_circles do |t| t.string :name t.string :guid t.timestamps end create_table :circle_owner do |t| t.string :ownable_type t.string :ownable_id t.integer :permissive_circle_id end which still fails with: Failure/Error: @user.circles.should be_an_instance_of Array NameError: uninitialized constant User::CircleOwner Which brings us back to the beginning. How can I do what seems to be a rather common polymorphic :has_many, :through on a module? Alternatively, is there a good way to allow an object to be collected by arbitrary objects in a similar way that will work with a module?

    Read the article

  • C++: How do I correctly register and unregister file type associations for our application (programa

    - by Mordachai
    Time was when you set file associations in: HEY_CLASSES_ROOT\<.ext However, that seems to be possible, but an incomplete solution anymore. There are additional associations throughout the registry. For example: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\KindMap HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Extensions And all of the above, but by HKEY_USERS\ And Microsoft added their Set Default Associations control panel applet, which controls... what? I'm looking for a white paper, or discussions on: "How is a modern, Windows XP-Windows 7 compatible application written in C/C++ supposed to register and manipulate its file associations without interfering with Explorer, User-Settings, or the Default Associations cpl"

    Read the article

  • FileOpenPicker/FileSavePicker doesn't allow *.* wildcard file associations

    - by mbrit
    On Twitter, Matthias Jauernig commented that the FileOpenPicker and FileSavePicker doesn't allow *.* wildcard file associations. I was relaxed about this and wrote back that it was related to sandboxing implying it was a "good thing", however as Matthias commented back, perhaps it's not.In Metro-style the sandboxing works that if something gives you a file (e.g. the picker, or a share operation), you can access it regardless of where on the system. If you find the file yourself, you have to declare the type.The reason why I think it's related to sandboxing is because if you work with files programmatically you have to be explicit about the file types. This is to stop malware that you think is only interested in - say .PDF files, scanning and uploading any .EML files that it can find on the machine. It follows then on the pickers that restriction would continue. It allow's the retail store team to validate that an app is likely to behave itself. If it's an app that works with images, locking down the picker so that it can only access image file types makes sense.However Matthias mentioned that he has an app that should allow files of any arbitrary file. That fits more into the "if the user selects it, it must be OK" camp than the "programmatic scanning" camp. So now I'm left wondering why the picker doesn't allow any type to be selected.I think then maybe the decision comes down to simplicity. A lot of the decisions in Metro-style design relate to ideas about "zero intimidation". Allow the user to select any file is too much like Old Windows, and not enough like Reimagined Windows. What happens in Matthias's app if the user selects Explorer.exe as the file he or she wants to work with? I guess it's fine if you expect your user to know what they're doing (Old Windows), but not so fine if you're expecting a three year old to work with it (Reimagined Windows).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >