This gist referred to by the Devise wiki is no longer accurate as far as I can tell. So I wanted to share my approach for how to use devise in a situation where user documents are embedded in account documents, especially in the scenario where your account has a subdomain assigned to it.
Obviously, the first thing you need to do is make sure you always have access to the current account as keyed by the subdomain. This means a before filter on any controller that runs under the subdomain that loads in your account. The idea is that once you load the account, you never have to pull it from the database again:
class AccountSubdomainController < ApplicationController
before_filter :current_account
protected
def current_account
@account ||= params[:current_account] ||= get_account_by_subdomain
params[:user][:current_account] = @account if params[:user]
@account
end
def get_account_by_subdomain
Account.where(:subdomain => request.subdomain.downcase).first
end
end
If you're not using an account-specific subdomain, just modify this to pull out the account from the URL or something.
Read more...
I have a large Rails 3 project with lots of reusable code in modules. Tests for these modules are placed in test/lib to isolate them from database-heavy model tests. In order to run these tests automatically along with my unit, functional, and integration tests, I implemented the solution described here some time ago. However, at some point over the last year, either Rake or Rails or both broke this (I'm leaning towards Rails, since the new tasks in the Railties gem look much more complex, with special subtasks derived from the Rake::TestTask class). I've been looking for a new approach, and today I got fed up and started fixing it myself.
Read more...
One of the great things about embedded documents in MongoDB is that you can design your "schema" according to how you're going to use the data. Ordered lists of objects is a great use for embedded documents, as you can just shove objects in an array and read them out in order. This allows one to dispense with the unpleasantness of "acts_as_list"-style approaches where you have to juggle a "position" field and do an explicit sort.
But what if you want to reorder the embedded documents? Should be simple to sort an array. Our ODM - Mongoid in this case - would never represent the embedded collection as an array and not let us work with it as an array, right?
class Container
include Mongoid::Document
embeds_many :items
end
class Item
include Mongoid::Document
embedded_in :container
field :title, :as => String
end
c = Container.create
c.items.create :title => "first"
c.items.create :title => "second"
>> c.items
=> [#<Item _id: 4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003, title: "first", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003'), _type: nil>, #<Item _id: 4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004, title: "second", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004'), _type: nil>]
>> c.items.reverse!
=> [#<Item _id: 4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004, title: "second", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004'), _type: nil>, #<Item _id: 4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003, title: "first", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003'), _type: nil>]
>> c.save
=> true
>> c.reload.items
=> [#<Item _id: 4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003, title: "first", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d971322bcdab7c000003'), _type: nil>, #<Item _id: 4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004, title: "second", _id: BSON::ObjectId('4dd2d981322bcdab7c000004'), _type: nil>]
OK, so not that easy, but maybe this means we just need to set the new array explicitly.
Read more...
Treeoid
Tree hierarchies for your Mongoid::Document objects
I'm a bit late mentioning this, but I released another super-beta gem in the hopes it might help another poor soul: treeoid, the missing "acts_as_tree" library for mongoid. It couldn't be simpler, really: it gives you a "parent" accessor and a "children" collection. On top of that, it provides a scope allowing you to list a set of treeoid objects in hierarchical order, which is perfect for front end integration.
The tests are there but nominal; I'd love to see them fleshed out. I also had some ideas for making it cooler; for example, I keep an array of an object's descendants in the object, allowing me to hierarchically order objects. This opens up some novel means to simplify how I implement the parent and children accessor. Imagine this:
field :ancestry, type => Array # contains ids of all ancestors including self, already exists
# but instead of a parent_id accessor
def parent_id
ancestry.at(-2) # the parent can be fetched from the ancestry list
end
This also allows all descendants of a given object to be easily fetched - if the id shows up in the ancestry, return it! It's this kind of out-of-the-box thinking that has really endeared MongoDB to me. I hope you can benefit from this and help me improve it. Or help with greedy. I'd love to get said help at CVREG's upcoming Why Day hackfest.
RailsConf Dispatch - Test Always?
How not thinking carefully about your test suite can hold you back
There were two conveniently sequential presentations today at RailsConf that reminded me of some thoughts I'd had regarding testing: Michael Feathers' talk on legacy code and Glenn Vanderberg's talk on real software engineering. It seems to me that both talks had a theme in common: what is the function of tests? Why do we want them, what role do they play from an engineering perspective in the larger process, and what precisely are they meant to indicate to us?
Michael at one point talked about the expense of 100% code coverage for tests, instead recommending we test the parts of the code that change the least and are most important. Ugly code in legacy projects has utility, he explained, and untested code is a rational response to churn. Afterwards, Glenn discussed software development in the context of engineering principles from older, more established disciplines like structural engineering, finding areas of similarity, analogy, and abject difference. However, his testing point compared experiments in code to experiments in more physical engineering fields, remarking on how relatively cheap tests are for us. I suppose the common thread I found concerned the emphasis on cost: that what it means for us to do our job well is to do it effectively, and not subordinate our conscience and creativity to a mechanical process.
For some background, I've been practicing behavior driven development for a year or two. I love the confidence that testing gives me, independent of the value to the client. Verifying that my code works is fine and all, but what lets me sleep at night is the assurance derived from approaching a problem in a rational, systemic manner. By moving in small chunks and expressing problems in terms I understand well enough to programmatically recreate, I ground myself in a real comprehension of the system I'm building at the most relevant level and stage. I avoid the confusion of jumping ahead, thinking too large scale or minutely, or making unwarranted assumptions that come back to bite.
Read more...
The first tutorial class at RailsConf on Rails Anti-Patterns has been phenomenal and incredibly validating given my experiences with consulting. Tammer Saleh gave a wonderful talk on how to handle troubled legacy codebases - what he calls "rescue missions". It's particularly relevant for me as much of my early freelance work centered on failing projects I was dumped into.
Because of the success of Rails, there's a lot of shitty code out there for you to fix. The harder issue is figuring out why shitty code was delivered, which can be trickier to figure out than you'd think. It can be really difficult to change the course of a project when much more than merely the code is dysfunctional.
Tammer suggested a ton of coping strategies, many of which end up being good practices for most situations. I'm sharing my cursory notes here in case others are interested. Feel free to strike up a conversation in the comments to explore these points. I'll link to the slides when they become available.
Read more...
Over the last week I've started a project with Rails 3 and I'm impressed. The increased configurability of the framework has not diminished its ease of use nor its core concepts in the slightest. You'll have to get used to a few new conventions, especially regarding routing, but there's lots of help out there.
Since this project is something I'm doing in my off time, I decided to experiment with MongoDB using the Mongoid framework. I had played with MongoMapper before, but always felt like I was using an ActiveRecord clone that didn't take advantage of the full capabilities of a document database and was forcing and ActiveRecord-style approach on me. With Mongoid you get has_many, has_one, and belongs_to relationships that map to MongoDB concepts like embedded documents. Mongoid is fully compatible with the ActiveModel interface for Rails3, and things like associations and nested attributes work out of the box.
I also had been hearing great things about CarrierWave from co-workers. It employs the concept of an "uploader" outside of the MVC ecosystem. The uploader handles resizing, storage, and all other details. In your model, you simply "mount" the uploader and you're golden. Of course, for this project the killer feature is the GridFS storage option, which is something I wanted to play with.
Read more...
If acts_as_enumerated classes are borking when you run your tests, here's a nasty workaround I did that just might work for you:
class MembershipStatus < ActiveRecord::Base
if RAILS_ENV == 'test'
def self.[](label)
case label
when :pending
MembershipStatus.new(:id => 1)
when :accepted
MembershipStatus.new(:id => 2)
when :denied
MembershipStatus.new(:id => 3)
when :invited
MembershipStatus.new(:id => 4)
end
end
else
acts_as_enumerated
end
end
