Hey everyone,
I''m currently making an application that allows users to create custom
fields that have attributes associated with each field.
They can then attach instances of these fields (each with their own
separate attribute instances) to their account.
So, it looks like this:
Fields
/ \
Field Instances Field Attributes
\ /
Field Attribute Instances
Where Field Instances and Field Attributes both belong to Field, and have
many Field Attribute Instances. So the kicker here is that Field
Attribute Instances are dependent on both Field Instances and Field
Attributes.
I need to get an array that looks like the following:
Fields.FieldInstances.FieldAttributes.FieldAttributeInstances
Right now, I''m doing something like the following:
Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances => { :field_attributes
=>
{ :field_attribute_instances } } }) which gives me the order I want.
However, I see no way to get field_attribute_instances dependent on BOTH
field_attributes and field_instances (instead of just field_attributes, as
it currently is)
In fact, even if I specify that in the :conditions option, Active Record
will ignore it and add any and all field_attribute_instances that are
dependent on field_attribute (even if they don''t match
field_instances).
If the order in which I include things changes to FieldInstances =>
FieldAttributeInstances => FieldAttribute then I get the results I need,
but not the array I need.
Any suggestions on how I can go about fixing this problem?
Thanks.
> Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances => > { :field_attributes => > { :field_attribute_instances } } })This looks right to me. Have you tried adding a compound condition: :conditions => [''field_instances.id = ? AND field_attributes.id =?, 3, 4''] - dan -- Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000> On Jul 24, 2006, at 5:11 PM, Marcel Guzman wrote:> Hey everyone, > > I''m currently making an application that allows users to create custom > fields that have attributes associated with each field. > > They can then attach instances of these fields (each with their own > separate attribute instances) to their account. > > So, it looks like this: > > Fields > / \ > Field Instances Field Attributes > \ / > Field Attribute Instances > > Where Field Instances and Field Attributes both belong to Field, > and have > many Field Attribute Instances. So the kicker here is that Field > Attribute Instances are dependent on both Field Instances and Field > Attributes. > > I need to get an array that looks like the following: > Fields.FieldInstances.FieldAttributes.FieldAttributeInstances > > Right now, I''m doing something like the following: > Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances => > { :field_attributes => > { :field_attribute_instances } } }) which gives me the order I want. > However, I see no way to get field_attribute_instances dependent > on BOTH > field_attributes and field_instances (instead of just > field_attributes, as > it currently is) > > In fact, even if I specify that in the :conditions option, Active > Record > will ignore it and add any and all field_attribute_instances that are > dependent on field_attribute (even if they don''t match > field_instances). > > If the order in which I include things changes to FieldInstances => > FieldAttributeInstances => FieldAttribute then I get the results I > need, > but not the array I need. > > Any suggestions on how I can go about fixing this problem? > > Thanks. > > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>> Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances => >> { :field_attributes => >> { :field_attribute_instances } } }) > > This looks right to me. Have you tried adding a compound condition: > :conditions => [''field_instances.id = ? AND field_attributes.id =?, > 3, 4''] > > - danHi Dan, Yes, I''ve tried that (actually, not exactly that, but :conditions => ''field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id field_instances.id'', as well as a bit of a hack - :joins => ''AND field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id field_instances.id'') Running the query in my MySQL client gives me the correct results (ie. field_attribute_instances are dependent on both field_attributes and field_instances). However, it seems that Active Record is interpreting the :includes option a bit too literally for my needs, basically doing something like (pseudocode): if field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id == field_attributes.id Field.FieldInstance.FieldAttribute << field_attribute_instances end (where the condition *should* be: field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id == field_attributes.id && field_attribute_instances.field_instance_id == field_instances.id) Thanks again for the help - Marcel
I find I can usually work this out by working with script/console and
watching development.log to see what SQL ActiveRecord is generating.
There''s at least one open bug regarding the includes overriding the
conditions. If you can confirm that that is happening here too, you
should file a bug report.
In the meantime, I don''t understand why you would need to bother
with the joins, as AR passes conditions right through (after
sanitizing the variables).
http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/5371
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
On Jul 24, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Marcel Guzman wrote:
>>> Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances =>
>>> { :field_attributes =>
>>> { :field_attribute_instances } } })
>>
>> This looks right to me. Have you tried adding a compound condition:
>> :conditions => [''field_instances.id = ? AND
field_attributes.id =?,
>> 3, 4'']
>>
>> - dan
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> Yes, I''ve tried that (actually, not exactly that, but :conditions
=>
> ''field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id >
field_instances.id'', as well as a bit of a hack - :joins =>
''AND
> field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id >
field_instances.id'')
>
> Running the query in my MySQL client gives me the correct results (ie.
> field_attribute_instances are dependent on both field_attributes and
> field_instances).
>
> However, it seems that Active Record is interpreting the :includes
> option
> a bit too literally for my needs, basically doing something like
> (pseudocode):
>
> if field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id == field_attributes.id
> Field.FieldInstance.FieldAttribute << field_attribute_instances
> end
>
> (where the condition *should* be:
> field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id == field_attributes.id
&&
> field_attribute_instances.field_instance_id == field_instances.id)
>
> Thanks again for the help
>
> - Marcel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
Sorry, I meant includes overriding selects. It could be overriding
conditions too.
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
On Jul 24, 2006, at 6:49 PM, Dan Kohn wrote:
> I find I can usually work this out by working with script/console
> and watching development.log to see what SQL ActiveRecord is
> generating. There''s at least one open bug regarding the includes
> overriding the conditions. If you can confirm that that is
> happening here too, you should file a bug report.
>
> In the meantime, I don''t understand why you would need to bother
> with the joins, as AR passes conditions right through (after
> sanitizing the variables).
>
> http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/5371
>
> - dan
> --
> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
>
>
>
> On Jul 24, 2006, at 5:56 PM, Marcel Guzman wrote:
>
>>>> Field.find(:all, :include => { :field_instances =>
>>>> { :field_attributes =>
>>>> { :field_attribute_instances } } })
>>>
>>> This looks right to me. Have you tried adding a compound
condition:
>>> :conditions => [''field_instances.id = ? AND
field_attributes.id =?,
>>> 3, 4'']
>>>
>>> - dan
>>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> Yes, I''ve tried that (actually, not exactly that, but
:conditions =>
>> ''field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id
>> field_instances.id'', as well as a bit of a hack - :joins =>
''AND
>> field_attribute_instances_field_attributes.field_instance_id >>
field_instances.id'')
>>
>> Running the query in my MySQL client gives me the correct results
>> (ie.
>> field_attribute_instances are dependent on both field_attributes and
>> field_instances).
>>
>> However, it seems that Active Record is interpreting the :includes
>> option
>> a bit too literally for my needs, basically doing something like
>> (pseudocode):
>>
>> if field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id ==
>> field_attributes.id
>> Field.FieldInstance.FieldAttribute << field_attribute_instances
>> end
>>
>> (where the condition *should* be:
>> field_attribute_instances.field_attribute_id ==
>> field_attributes.id &&
>> field_attribute_instances.field_instance_id == field_instances.id)
>>
>> Thanks again for the help
>>
>> - Marcel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Rails mailing list
>> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
>> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> Sorry, I meant includes overriding selects. It could be overriding > conditions too. > > - dan > -- > Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> > <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000> > >Hey Dan, Thanks again for your help. I''m wondering though, if it''s a bug or expected behaviour. I''ve narrowed the code down to a (fairly) simple testcase and posted it on http://www.marcelguzman.com/rails/ (the migration generates 6 rows of simple test data, and the output from console shows the bug). Any idea if I''d be able to get around that or not? If I switch the order of includes to :field_instances => :field_attribute_instances => :field_attributes , then it grabs everything perfectly, but then I''m stuck becasue I need to access the data in the following order: field_instances => field_attributes => field_attribute_instances I suppose I could try using something like an ORDER BY clause and then looping through, catching when field_attribute_id changes. But that does seem incredibly hacky to me and I''m wondering if there''s a better way. Thanks again, Marcel
I would:
1) Post the bug to dev.rubyonrails.com, attaching your two test
files. I can''t see how you can argue it''s a feature.
2) Simply use a find_by_sql call to get exactly the functionality you
want.
- dan
--
Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
<http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
On Jul 25, 2006, at 6:32 PM, Marcel Guzman wrote:
>> Sorry, I meant includes overriding selects. It could be overriding
>> conditions too.
>>
>> - dan
>> --
>> Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com>
>> <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>
>>
>>
>
> Hey Dan,
>
> Thanks again for your help. I''m wondering though, if
it''s a bug or
> expected behaviour. I''ve narrowed the code down to a (fairly)
simple
> testcase and posted it on http://www.marcelguzman.com/rails/ (the
> migration generates 6 rows of simple test data, and the output from
> console shows the bug).
>
> Any idea if I''d be able to get around that or not?
>
> If I switch the order of includes to :field_instances =>
> :field_attribute_instances => :field_attributes , then it grabs
> everything
> perfectly, but then I''m stuck becasue I need to access the data in
the
> following order:
> field_instances => field_attributes => field_attribute_instances
>
> I suppose I could try using something like an ORDER BY clause and then
> looping through, catching when field_attribute_id changes. But
> that does
> seem incredibly hacky to me and I''m wondering if there''s
a better way.
>
> Thanks again,
> Marcel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails@lists.rubyonrails.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> I would: > > 1) Post the bug to dev.rubyonrails.com, attaching your two test > files. I can''t see how you can argue it''s a feature. > 2) Simply use a find_by_sql call to get exactly the functionality you > want. > > - dan > -- > Dan Kohn <mailto:dan@dankohn.com> > <http://www.dankohn.com/> <tel:+1-415-233-1000>Hi Dan, thanks again for your help - you''ve been of great assistance :) 1) I will definitely do that tonight, but I want to prepare some more detailed test data first to make the bug more evident. 2) I could do that - but is there any way to use find_by_sql such that it will still allow me to use the association collections, or will I have to manually process the returned data? Thanks, Marcel