I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, and fear it can''t be done. Here is an example of my issue... class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. However, both Store and Department have many products. An product has the columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. This is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may be a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model that would give me all products for that StoreType. Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :stores has_many :departments, :through=>:stores has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, :uniq => true has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, :source=>:products, :uniq => true end This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the nested association (department_products). However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through a function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can add more conditions to the collection. Is there a way to do this? Thanks in advance! Trish -- 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.
class Store < ActiveRecord::Base has_many: store_type has_many: product_type, :through => department class Department < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to: store belongs_to: product class Product < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :departments has_many :stores, :through => department end I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.ball-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, and > fear it can''t be done. > > Here is an example of my issue... > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. However, > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. This > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may be > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model that > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :stores > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, :uniq > => true > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, :source=>:products, > :uniq > => true > end > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the nested > association (department_products). > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through a > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can add > more conditions to the collection. > > Is there a way to do this? > > Thanks in advance! > Trish > > -- > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@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.
Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring an existing application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure SQL that was put in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with a table association. One of the big features I want to use out of this is retrieving the records in the proper order (I''d prefer not to sort with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to rewrite a bunch of code for the sorting of the report). However, as this is an existing application (similar in setup to the example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table already associated with it, and the ids are being used. Another option that would work is to use a ''joins'' statement in my finder method so I can sort products based on Store attributes with something like this: FROM products LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id = products.department_id LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR stores.id departments.store_id However, I am also using an :include option for several associations, and it seems that joins and include are mutually exclusive. I''d really had to have to write out all of the associations. Any thoughts? Thanks! Trish On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> class Store < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many: store_type > has_many: product_type, :through => department > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base > belongs_to: store > belongs_to: product > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :departments > has_many :stores, :through => department > end > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, and > > fear it can''t be done. > > > Here is an example of my issue... > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. However, > > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. This > > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may be > > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model that > > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many :stores > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, :uniq > > => true > > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, :source=>:products, > > :uniq > > => true > > end > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the nested > > association (department_products). > > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through a > > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can add > > more conditions to the collection. > > > Is there a way to do this? > > > Thanks in advance! > > Trish > > > -- > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
> > Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring an existing > application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure SQL that was put > in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with a table > association.Why do you believe this?> One of the big features I want to use out of this is > retrieving the records in the proper order (I''d prefer not to sort > with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to rewrite a bunch > of code for the sorting of the report). >What is the proper order?>However, as this is an existing application (similar in setup to the> example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table > already associated with it, and the ids are being used. >Gotcha.> > Another option that would work is to use a ''joins'' statement in my > finder method so I can sort products based on Store attributes with > something like this: > FROM products > LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id = products.department_id > LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR stores.id > departments.store_id >why not SELECT view INNER JOIN associations WHERE = AND = OR =.> > However, I am also using an :include option for several associations, > and it seems that joins and include are mutually exclusive. I''d > really had to have to write out all of the associations. >I''ll respond after I unravel what that means in my head.> > Any thoughts? >Those are my thoughts. I''m newish and find attempting to help in turn helps me to learn. I hope you don''t mind.> > Thanks! >You are welcome> Trish >Angel> > On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many: store_type > > has_many: product_type, :through => department > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base > > belongs_to: store > > belongs_to: product > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many :departments > > has_many :stores, :through => department > > end > > > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... > > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > > > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, and > > > fear it can''t be done. > > > > > Here is an example of my issue... > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. However, > > > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > > > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. This > > > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may be > > > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > > > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model that > > > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > > > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > > > has_many :stores > > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > > > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, :uniq > > > => true > > > > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, > :source=>:products, > > > :uniq > > > => true > > > end > > > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the nested > > > association (department_products). > > > > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > > > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through a > > > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > > > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can add > > > more conditions to the collection. > > > > > Is there a way to do this? > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > Trish > > > > > -- > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > e@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@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.
See below... Thanks! Trish On Aug 3, 11:00 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring an existing > > application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure SQL that was put > > in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with a table > > association. > > Why do you believe this?This seems to be the best way to retrieve the needed data in the proper order. My closest attempt gets me two sets of data (for department_products and store_products), and then I do a "find" on their ids, allowing me to do the :order statement as needed.> > > One of the big features I want to use out of this is > > retrieving the records in the proper order (I''d prefer not to sort > > with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to rewrite a bunch > > of code for the sorting of the report). > > What is the proper order?This report needs to have (and currently has) multi-column sort capabilities> > > > However, as this is an existing application (similar in setup to the> example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table > > already associated with it, and the ids are being used. > > Gotcha. > > > > > Another option that would work is to use a ''joins'' statement in my > > finder method so I can sort products based on Store attributes with > > something like this: > > FROM products > > LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id = products.department_id > > LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR stores.id > > departments.store_id > > why not SELECT view INNER JOIN associations WHERE = AND = OR =.forgive my SQL... that is just an attempt to explain what I need. SQL is definitely not my strong suit.> > > > > However, I am also using an :include option for several associations, > > and it seems that joins and include are mutually exclusive. I''d > > really had to have to write out all of the associations. > > I''ll respond after I unravel what that means in my head.I suppose what this all comes down to, is a way to achieve the necessary SQL through ActiveRecord so I can properly determine the table.column_names to sort on. As I mentioned earlier, I am able to get the needed product items with my doing a find on the sum of ids... so I guess this is less of an association issue, and more of a joins issue ActiveRecord.find so I can get my proper sorting order..> > > > > Any thoughts? > > Those are my thoughts. I''m newish and find attempting to help in turn helps > me to learn. I hope you don''t mind.Any advise helps! I appreciate your taking the time to think about this.> > > > > Thanks! > > You are welcome > > > Trish > > Angel > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > wrote: > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base > > > has_many: store_type > > > has_many: product_type, :through => department > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base > > > belongs_to: store > > > belongs_to: product > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > > > has_many :departments > > > has_many :stores, :through => department > > > end > > > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > > > > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, and > > > > fear it can''t be done. > > > > > Here is an example of my issue... > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. However, > > > > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > > > > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. This > > > > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may be > > > > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > > > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model that > > > > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > > > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > has_many :stores > > > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > > > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, :uniq > > > > => true > > > > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, > > :source=>:products, > > > > :uniq > > > > => true > > > > end > > > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the nested > > > > association (department_products). > > > > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > > > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > > > > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through a > > > > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > > > > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can add > > > > more conditions to the collection. > > > > > Is there a way to do this? > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Trish > > > > > -- > > > > 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@googlegroups.com > > . > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > e@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Trish <trish.ball-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> See below... > > Thanks! > Trish > > On Aug 3, 11:00 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > > Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring an existing > > > application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure SQL that was put > > > in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with a table > > > association. > > > > Why do you believe this? > > This seems to be the best way to retrieve the needed data in the > proper order. My closest attempt gets me two sets of data (for > department_products and store_products), and then I do a "find" on > their ids, allowing me to do the :order statement as needed. >I''m just not sure why it would be the best. Is it scalable? If you introduce another factor it sounds messy.> > > > > > One of the big features I want to use out of this is > > > retrieving the records in the proper order (I''d prefer not to sort > > > with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to rewrite a bunch > > > of code for the sorting of the report). > > > > What is the proper order? > This report needs to have (and currently has) multi-column sort > capabilitiesWell, are you exposing data with an API? Don''t bake an obscure order into the response. Allow the front end component to do sorting and filtering. Just get the data dump and have the data grid view do that work for you. I think if you return the query as json or xml you can have any view do parse it, right?> > However, as this is an existing application (similar in setup to the> > example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table > > > already associated with it, and the ids are being used. > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > > > > > Another option that would work is to use a ''joins'' statement in my > > > finder method so I can sort products based on Store attributes with > > > something like this: > > > FROM products > > > LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id = products.department_id > > > LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR stores.id > > > departments.store_id > > > > why not SELECT view INNER JOIN associations WHERE = AND = OR =. > forgive my SQL... that is just an attempt to explain what I need. SQL > is definitely not my strong suit. > > > > > > > > > However, I am also using an :include option for several associations, > > > and it seems that joins and include are mutually exclusive. I''d > > > really had to have to write out all of the associations. > > > > I''ll respond after I unravel what that means in my head. > > I suppose what this all comes down to, is a way to achieve the > necessary SQL through ActiveRecord so I can properly determine the > table.column_names to sort on. As I mentioned earlier, I am able to > get the needed product items with my doing a find on the sum of ids... > so I guess this is less of an association issue, and more of a joins > issue ActiveRecord.find so I can get my proper sorting order.. >Okay, I kinda get what your saying. That is why I introduced the SQL *view*. It''s a good way of returning data from multiple tables that aren''t quite normalized. Which is interesting for me to look into. I''m not sure how the SQL view translates over into AR.> > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Those are my thoughts. I''m newish and find attempting to help in turn > helps > > me to learn. I hope you don''t mind. > > Any advise helps! I appreciate your taking the time to think about > this. >No worries. I think we need a diagram. How much time do we have I don''t want to eat up the clock for you :)> > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > You are welcome > > > > > Trish > > > > Angel > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > > wrote: > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > has_many: store_type > > > > has_many: product_type, :through => department > > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > belongs_to: store > > > > belongs_to: product > > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > has_many :departments > > > > has_many :stores, :through => department > > > > end > > > > > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > > > > > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, > and > > > > > fear it can''t be done. > > > > > > > Here is an example of my issue... > > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. > However, > > > > > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > > > > > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. > This > > > > > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may > be > > > > > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > > > > > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model > that > > > > > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > > > > > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > > has_many :stores > > > > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > > > > > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, > :uniq > > > > > => true > > > > > > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, > > > :source=>:products, > > > > > :uniq > > > > > => true > > > > > end > > > > > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the > nested > > > > > association (department_products). > > > > > > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > > > > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > > > > > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through > a > > > > > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > > > > > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can > add > > > > > more conditions to the collection. > > > > > > > Is there a way to do this? > > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > Trish > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > > > . > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > > e@googlegroups.com> > > > > > . > > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > . > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > e@googlegroups.com> > > > . > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@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.
Thank you for your help. As you suggested, I decided to handle the sort on the front end with a jQuery plugin. That resolves my issues with this, and no longer need to worry about creating a complex Active Record call. Thanks for your help! Trish On Aug 3, 8:59 pm, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > See below... > > > Thanks! > > Trish > > > On Aug 3, 11:00 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > wrote: > > > > Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring an existing > > > > application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure SQL that was put > > > > in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with a table > > > > association. > > > > Why do you believe this? > > > This seems to be the best way to retrieve the needed data in the > > proper order. My closest attempt gets me two sets of data (for > > department_products and store_products), and then I do a "find" on > > their ids, allowing me to do the :order statement as needed. > > I''m just not sure why it would be the best. Is it scalable? If you introduce > another factor it sounds messy. > > > > > > > One of the big features I want to use out of this is > > > > retrieving the records in the proper order (I''d prefer not to sort > > > > with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to rewrite a bunch > > > > of code for the sorting of the report). > > > > What is the proper order? > > This report needs to have (and currently has) multi-column sort > > capabilities > > Well, are you exposing data with an API? Don''t bake an obscure order into > the response. Allow the front end component to do sorting and filtering. > Just get the data dump and have the data grid view do that work for you. I > think if you return the query as json or xml you can have any view do parse > it, right? > > > > > > > > However, as this is an existing application (similar in setup to the> > > example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table > > > > already associated with it, and the ids are being used. > > > > Gotcha. > > > > > Another option that would work is to use a ''joins'' statement in my > > > > finder method so I can sort products based on Store attributes with > > > > something like this: > > > > FROM products > > > > LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id = products.department_id > > > > LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR stores.id > > > > departments.store_id > > > > why not SELECT view INNER JOIN associations WHERE = AND = OR =. > > forgive my SQL... that is just an attempt to explain what I need. SQL > > is definitely not my strong suit. > > > > > However, I am also using an :include option for several associations, > > > > and it seems that joins and include are mutually exclusive. I''d > > > > really had to have to write out all of the associations. > > > > I''ll respond after I unravel what that means in my head. > > > I suppose what this all comes down to, is a way to achieve the > > necessary SQL through ActiveRecord so I can properly determine the > > table.column_names to sort on. As I mentioned earlier, I am able to > > get the needed product items with my doing a find on the sum of ids... > > so I guess this is less of an association issue, and more of a joins > > issue ActiveRecord.find so I can get my proper sorting order.. > > Okay, I kinda get what your saying. That is why I introduced the SQL *view*. > It''s a good way of returning data from multiple tables that aren''t quite > normalized. Which is interesting for me to look into. I''m not sure how the > SQL view translates over into AR. > > > > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > Those are my thoughts. I''m newish and find attempting to help in turn > > helps > > > me to learn. I hope you don''t mind. > > > Any advise helps! I appreciate your taking the time to think about > > this. > > No worries. I think we need a diagram. How much time do we have I don''t want > to eat up the clock for you :) > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > You are welcome > > > > > Trish > > > > Angel > > > > > On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez <angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > > has_many: store_type > > > > > has_many: product_type, :through => department > > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > > belongs_to: store > > > > > belongs_to: product > > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > > has_many :departments > > > > > has_many :stores, :through => department > > > > > end > > > > > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a model... > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish <trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > I am working on a project that has some complex table associations, > > > > > > and I am having a hard time declaring this association in a Model, > > and > > > > > > fear it can''t be done. > > > > > > > Here is an example of my issue... > > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end > > > > > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has many Department. > > However, > > > > > > both Store and Department have many products. An product has the > > > > > > columns store_id and department_id which are mutually exclusive. > > This > > > > > > is because a Product may belong directly to a Department, or it may > > be > > > > > > a ''global'' product that belongs directly to the Store. > > > > > > > What I''d like to do is have an association in the StoreType model > > that > > > > > > would give me all products for that StoreType. > > > > > > > Currently, I have set up the following associtations on StoreType: > > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base > > > > > > has_many :stores > > > > > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores > > > > > > > has_many :store_products, :through=>:stores, :source=>:products, > > :uniq > > > > > > => true > > > > > > > has_many :department_products, :through=>:departments, > > > > :source=>:products, > > > > > > :uniq > > > > > > => true > > > > > > end > > > > > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through plugin to achieve the > > nested > > > > > > association (department_products). > > > > > > > However, I''d like to have a generic ''products'' association for > > > > > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two product associations. > > > > > > I''d like to do this through an association instead of just through > > a > > > > > > function because I want to gain the dynamic methods created by > > > > > > has_many, specifically the "collection.find(...)" method so I can > > add > > > > > > more conditions to the collection. > > > > > > > Is there a way to do this? > > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > > > Trish > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org > > > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > > > e@googlegroups.com> > > > > > > . > > > > > > 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@googlegroups.com > > . > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > e@googlegroups.com> > > > > . > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib e@googlegroups.com> > > . > > 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
Sahweet! Hi fives!
I think , in this case, the only thing the model should do is supply the
LIMIT.
get(''5'')
and have the view logic handle pagination, sorting, filtering.
caching the response to accommodate the incremental limits would be an
entirely different animal.
Thanks for letting me help!
Some job post on here referenced this as well. Seemed inline with your
inquiry...
http://nokogiri.org/README_rdoc.html
This has perked my interest
http://halcyon.rubyforge.org/
Have fun and keep me in the loop.
On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Trish
<trish.ball-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Thank you for your help. As you suggested, I decided to handle the
> sort on the front end with a jQuery plugin. That resolves my issues
> with this, and no longer need to worry about creating a complex Active
> Record call.
>
> Thanks for your help!
> Trish
>
> On Aug 3, 8:59 pm, Angel Robert Marquez
<angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Trish
<trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > > See below...
> >
> > > Thanks!
> > > Trish
> >
> > > On Aug 3, 11:00 am, Angel Robert Marquez
<angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > Thank you for your response. However, I am refactoring
an existing
> > > > > application, and am trying to remove a bunch of pure
SQL that was
> put
> > > > > in the code. I believe the best way to do this is with
a table
> > > > > association.
> >
> > > > Why do you believe this?
> >
> > > This seems to be the best way to retrieve the needed data in the
> > > proper order. My closest attempt gets me two sets of data (for
> > > department_products and store_products), and then I do a
"find" on
> > > their ids, allowing me to do the :order statement as needed.
> >
> > I''m just not sure why it would be the best. Is it scalable?
If you
> introduce
> > another factor it sounds messy.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > One of the big features I want to use out of this is
> > > > > retrieving the records in the proper order
(I''d prefer not to sort
> > > > > with Ruby after the fact since that would force me to
rewrite a
> bunch
> > > > > of code for the sorting of the report).
> >
> > > > What is the proper order?
> > > This report needs to have (and currently has) multi-column sort
> > > capabilities
> >
> > Well, are you exposing data with an API? Don''t bake an
obscure order into
> > the response. Allow the front end component to do sorting and
filtering.
> > Just get the data dump and have the data grid view do that work for
you.
> I
> > think if you return the query as json or xml you can have any view do
> parse
> > it, right?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > However, as this is an existing application (similar in
setup to the>
> > > example I gave), I cannot remove the model, as there is a table
> > > > > already associated with it, and the ids are being used.
> >
> > > > Gotcha.
> >
> > > > > Another option that would work is to use a
''joins'' statement in my
> > > > > finder method so I can sort products based on Store
attributes with
> > > > > something like this:
> > > > > FROM products
> > > > > LEFT JOIN departments on departements.id =
products.department_id
> > > > > LEFT JOIN stores on stores.id = products.store_id OR
stores.id > > > > > departments.store_id
> >
> > > > why not SELECT view INNER JOIN associations WHERE = AND =
OR =.
> > > forgive my SQL... that is just an attempt to explain what I need.
SQL
> > > is definitely not my strong suit.
> >
> > > > > However, I am also using an :include option for several
> associations,
> > > > > and it seems that joins and include are mutually
exclusive. I''d
> > > > > really had to have to write out all of the
associations.
> >
> > > > I''ll respond after I unravel what that means in my
head.
> >
> > > I suppose what this all comes down to, is a way to achieve the
> > > necessary SQL through ActiveRecord so I can properly determine
the
> > > table.column_names to sort on. As I mentioned earlier, I am able
to
> > > get the needed product items with my doing a find on the sum of
ids...
> > > so I guess this is less of an association issue, and more of a
joins
> > > issue ActiveRecord.find so I can get my proper sorting order..
> >
> > Okay, I kinda get what your saying. That is why I introduced the SQL
> *view*.
> > It''s a good way of returning data from multiple tables that
aren''t quite
> > normalized. Which is interesting for me to look into. I''m not
sure how
> the
> > SQL view translates over into AR.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Any thoughts?
> >
> > > > Those are my thoughts. I''m newish and find
attempting to help in turn
> > > helps
> > > > me to learn. I hope you don''t mind.
> >
> > > Any advise helps! I appreciate your taking the time to think
about
> > > this.
> >
> > No worries. I think we need a diagram. How much time do we have I
don''t
> want
> > to eat up the clock for you :)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > > > Thanks!
> >
> > > > You are welcome
> >
> > > > > Trish
> >
> > > > Angel
> >
> > > > > On Aug 3, 2:11 am, Angel Robert Marquez
<angel.marq...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > has_many: store_type
> > > > > > has_many: product_type, :through => department
> >
> > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > belongs_to: store
> > > > > > belongs_to: product
> >
> > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > has_many :departments
> > > > > > has_many :stores, :through => department
> > > > > > end
> >
> > > > > > I think you need to remove the StoreType as a
model...
> >
> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Trish
<trish.b...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > > > > > > I am working on a project that has some
complex table
> associations,
> > > > > > > and I am having a hard time declaring this
association in a
> Model,
> > > and
> > > > > > > fear it can''t be done.
> >
> > > > > > > Here is an example of my issue...
> >
> > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base; end
> > > > > > > class Store < ActiveRecord::Base; end
> > > > > > > class Department < ActiveRecord::Base; end
> > > > > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base; end
> >
> > > > > > > A StoreType has many stores and a Store has
many Department.
> > > However,
> > > > > > > both Store and Department have many products.
An product has
> the
> > > > > > > columns store_id and department_id which are
mutually
> exclusive.
> > > This
> > > > > > > is because a Product may belong directly to a
Department, or it
> may
> > > be
> > > > > > > a ''global'' product that
belongs directly to the Store.
> >
> > > > > > > What I''d like to do is have an
association in the StoreType
> model
> > > that
> > > > > > > would give me all products for that
StoreType.
> >
> > > > > > > Currently, I have set up the following
associtations on
> StoreType:
> >
> > > > > > > class StoreType < ActiveRecord::Base
> > > > > > > has_many :stores
> > > > > > > has_many :departments, :through=>:stores
> >
> > > > > > > has_many :store_products,
:through=>:stores,
> :source=>:products,
> > > :uniq
> > > > > > > => true
> >
> > > > > > > has_many :department_products,
:through=>:departments,
> > > > > :source=>:products,
> > > > > > > :uniq
> > > > > > > => true
> > > > > > > end
> >
> > > > > > > This is using the Nested Has Many Through
plugin to achieve the
> > > nested
> > > > > > > association (department_products).
> >
> > > > > > > However, I''d like to have a generic
''products'' association for
> > > > > > > StoreType that pulls a combination of the two
product
> associations.
> > > > > > > I''d like to do this through an
association instead of just
> through
> > > a
> > > > > > > function because I want to gain the dynamic
methods created by
> > > > > > > has_many, specifically the
"collection.find(...)" method so I
> can
> > > add
> > > > > > > more conditions to the collection.
> >
> > > > > > > Is there a way to do this?
> >
> > > > > > > Thanks in advance!
> > > > > > > Trish
> >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
> > > > > .
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > > > >
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> > > e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> > > > > e@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
> > > .
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > > > >
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> e@googlegroups.com><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> > > e@googlegroups.com>
> > > > > .
> > > > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
> .
> > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > >
rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib
> e@googlegroups.com>
> > > .
> > > 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-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@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.