Rails - Jun 2010 - Accessing a class's variables from an included module

I created a mixin module called BaseProduct.  This module has an
initialize method in it.  I am trying to use some meta-programming to
set variables in initialize from the class that the module is in
included in.. I pass a CSV row into the initialize method and it needs
to set all the variables.  Its a bit confusing trying to explain it, but
here is what it looks like:

Note: the real world scenario is a bit more complicated using different
objects, but I simplified it here to use a "product" scenario.
---------------------------------------------
#<table_fields_from_class> is pseudo-code

Module BaseProduct
  def self.included(base)
    #some stuff goes here
  end

  def initialize(attributes = nil,row)
    super(attributes)
    <table_fields_from_class>.each_with_index do |field,i|
      #NOTE: row is an array of values (csv row to array)
      eval("self.#{field} = row[#{i}]")
    end
  end
end

class ShirtProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
  <table_fields_from_class> =
["size","color","collar_type"]
  include BaseProduct
end

class PantsProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
  <table_fields_from_class> =
["waist","length","material"]
  include BaseProduct
end

----------------------------------

I am import data from different CSVs (one for each type of product..
each having different attributes) into tables by so using this code I
want to be able to do this in rails:

pants = PantsProduct.new(nil,csv_row)
pants.save

I dont want to have to code an initialize method for every type of
product and I thought it would be much easier to use metaprogramming and
just pass an array of fields to a base initialize method.  I may be way
off here and there may be a completely different design pattern that
would support this use case better, but this is what I originally came
up with.  I have tried several things with attr_accessor, CONSTANTS,
etc.. but I have not been able to get the initialize method to see
variables I set in the class.  I am probably missing something simple as
I don''t fully understand the module''s scope of access to the
class...
seems pretty straight forward vice-versa (class from module), but the
other way around is confusing me a bit.  let me know if you got any
ideas.  THANKS!
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

On 7 June 2010 20:42, Yanni Mac
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> I created a mixin module called BaseProduct.  This module has an
> initialize method in it.  I am trying to use some meta-programming to
> set variables in initialize from the class that the module is in
> included in..
There''s a lot of recommendation against overloading initialize for
AR::Base classes:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=rails+overload+initialize

Regardless, I think you''re "solving" your problem the wrong
way -
you''re *never* going to be able to instanciate an object without a CSV
row; is that really what you want? How will the rest of your
application work when you just want to query the DB for
ShirtProduct.first?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

On 7 June 2010 20:42, Yanni Mac
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> class ShirtProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
> end
>
> class PantsProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
> end
And have you *really* designed to have a different table for different
types of product? I can only imagine lots of pain that will be caused
by that further down the line.

I''d suggest a look at polymorphism.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

On 7 Jun 2010, at 20:42, Yanni Mac
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>  def initialize(attributes = nil,row)
>    super(attributes)
>    <table_fields_from_class>.each_with_index do |field,i|
>      #NOTE: row is an array of values (csv row to array)
>      eval("self.#{field} = row[#{i}]")
>    end
>  end
> end
> 
Don''t use eval for this - send("#{field}=", value) will do
the trick
> I dont want to have to code an initialize method for every type of
> product and I thought it would be much easier to use metaprogramming and
> just pass an array of fields to a base initialize method.  I may be way
> off here and there may be a completely different design pattern that
> would support this use case better, but this is what I originally came
> up with.  I have tried several things with attr_accessor, CONSTANTS,
> etc.. but I have not been able to get the initialize method to see
> variables I set in the class.  I am probably missing something simple as
> I don''t fully understand the module''s scope of access to
the class...
> seems pretty straight forward vice-versa (class from module), but the
> other way around is confusing me a bit.  let me know if you got any
> ideas.  THANKS!
If you choose to go down the constant route, remember that constants are scoped
lexically. Try something like self.class::SOME_CONSTANT

Michael''s advice is also sensible - writing a create_from_csv_row
method is probably sounder


Fred
> -- 
> Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
> For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
> 
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Thanks guys for the quick responses.. looks like I will go back to the 
drawing board.  I was trying to force it in the initialize method to 
save a line of code, but creating create_from_csv_row is a much better 
solution giving the problems you guys outlined here.  Looks like 
polymorphism may solve some of my problems if I can rework my legacy db 
schema a bit.
> Regardless, I think you''re "solving" your problem the
wrong way -
> you''re *never* going to be able to instanciate an object without a
CSV
> row; is that really what you want? How will the rest of your
> application work when you just want to query the DB for
> ShirtProduct.first?
I actually included a check which I left out of the simplified code, 
which will allow regular use of initialize method if I leave out the 
row:

def initialize(attributes = nil,row=nil)
    super(attributes)
    unless row.blank?
      #ugly code goes here
    end
end

I was messing around with this some more and I figured out I can use 
class variables to achieve what I was trying to do.  Set the class var 
in first line of the module: @@table_fields and then reset it in the 
class.  The module has access to it in the class var in the initialize 
method after this.  Although I am scrapping this design in favor of what 
was suggested.. figured I would still post what I came up with.
-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Michael Pavling wrote:
> On 7 June 2010 20:42, Yanni Mac
<lists-fsXkhYbjdPsEEoCn2XhGlw@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> class ShirtProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
>> end
>>
>> class PantsProduct < ActiveRecord::Base
>> end
> 
> And have you *really* designed to have a different table for different
> types of product? I can only imagine lots of pain that will be caused
> by that further down the line.
> 
> I''d suggest a look at polymorphism.
My original example is polymorphism using mixin modules/duck typing. 
Are you referring to STI?  I read a while back that STI was a bad choice 
unless your fields are almost the same for every subclass.  I am using 
sort of a hybrid form of STI as you can see in my current design below. 
Can you explain which implementation of polymorphism you were referring 
to?  In my use case the fields can vary a good bit from type to type, 
and the types share about 20% of the fields with the parent class.  I am 
more concerned about sharing methods than I am fields in these 
associations, but I do need to use a parent table to retrieve all 
records from every subclass, so I don''t have to do a bunch of crazy 
joins.  My real use case is as follows.  If you have 5 minutes to read 
my lengthy use case, can you explain which design you would choose and 
why?

USE CASE:
I am rewriting some software I use to track affiliate network 
transactions and I am going to release it open source, so I want to make 
sure the design is sound.  The original software was basically a quick 
hack written in a day to get some info in my tables.  But as I expand my 
use of these tables I realize the limitations and I need something that 
is designed well and maintainable.

An affiliate network = website that tracks clicks from a publisher 
website over to a merchant website and records if a purchase is made. 
The affiliate network then records transactions from the merchant 
website and makes them available to the publisher so they can see how 
much commission they earned from each sale.  There are 8 major affiliate 
networks that I pull transactions from right now and in the next 5 
years, maybe that will grow to 20 or 30... and maybe up to 100 if 
someone adds smaller networks to my open source branch.

In the most basic form a transaction (which will be a single 
instance/database row of the class) includes a date, a sale amount, and 
a commission amount.  Each network has a different way of representing 
this data and they all include additional fields that are different.

I want to preserve the integrity of the original data from each network 
in my database in case I need it later on.. otherwise I would just 
manipulate the data when I pull it and insert it into one table with the 
common fields (date,sale,commission,network) and drop the rest of the 
data.  I also need to get the transactions in various formats (csv,xml) 
from various sources using REST & SOAP, so each subclass (affiliate 
network) will have some custom functionality in grabbing the data.  For 
these 2 reasons, I was planning on having a separate model and table for 
each subclass.

So here is my current design.  I created a mixin module called 
BaseTransaction for all the shared functionality.  Then I have a class 
called GeneralTransaction that is an activerecord model.  I have a 
seperate transaction subclass for each affiliate network... 
AffiliateOneTransaction, etc.  Each subclass uses the BaseTransaction 
mixin module for shared functionality.  I am trying to remember, but I 
think I chose the mixin module method because I could not use Ruby 
inheritence "<"  with activerecord and have a seperate table for
each
subclass.  A GeneralTransaction is inserted every time a subclass record 
is inserted and GeneralTransaction has subclass & subclass_id fields to 
reference the records in the subclass table.  Seems a little bit hairy 
to do it this way, but it will work.  I am just trying to figure out if 
there is a more "correct" way to do this design.  Any thoughts and 
suggestions are much appreciated.  Thanks if you took the time to read 
my lengthy post!



-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To post to this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFF+G/Ez6ZCGd0@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.