Search Results

Search found 443 results on 18 pages for 'validates uniqueness of'.

Page 2/18 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Active Record Validations : uniqueness of

    - by Elliot
    Hey guys, I'm using http://ar.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveRecord/Validations/ClassMethods.html#M000086 to validate records. My form is currently a remote form, using RJS. My question, is how to I return the :message (for errors) to the page through ajax (and I assume the create.rjs file)? Best, Elliot

    Read the article

  • convert a number to the shortest possible character string while retaining uniqueness

    - by alumb
    I have a list of digits, say "123456", and I need to map it to a string, any string. The only constraint on the map functions are: each list of digits must map to a unique character string (this means the string can be arbitrarily long) character string can only contain 0-9, a-z, A-Z What map function would produce the shortest strings? Solutions in JavaScript are preferred. note: Clearly the simplest solution is to use the original list of digits, so make sure you solution does better than that.

    Read the article

  • Enforcing a Uniqueness Constraint in a Nested Form

    - by Euwyn
    I'm trying not to fight the defaults here and use Rails built-in support for nested attributes (from http://ryandaigle.com/articles/2009/2/1/what-s-new-in-edge-rails-nested-attributes). I'm labeling Things with Tags, and all works swell, and for each Thing I have a form with a nested field that creates a new Tag by a name. Trouble is, I need to make sure that each Tag has a unique name. Instead of creating a new Tag, if a user enters the name of one that already exists, I need to create the associate with that pre-existing Tag. How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • Using unless in rails uniqueness validation

    - by dunxd
    I am just starting out in Rails, and trying to develop a simple application. I need to validate three values submitted to the application - each must meet the same validation criteria. The validation is pretty simple: Value is valid if unqiue, null or equal to "p" or "d". The following gets me halfway there: validates_uniqueness_of :value1, :value2, :value3, :allow_nil => true I think I can use :unless to check whether the value is either "p" or "d", however I can't figure out how. I guess I am trying to combine validates_uniqueness_of with validates_inclusion_of. Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • validate uniqueness amongst multiple subclasses with Single Table Inheritance

    - by irkenInvader
    I have a Card model that has many Sets and a Set model that has many Cards through a Membership model: class Card < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :sets, :through => :memberships end class Membership < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :card belongs_to :set validates_uniqueness_of :card_id, :scope => :set_id end class Set < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :memberships has_many :cards, :through => :memberships validates_presence_of :cards end I also have some sub-classes of the above using Single Table Inheritance: class FooCard < Card end class BarCard < Card end and class Expansion < Set end class GameSet < Set validates_size_of :cards, :is => 10 end All of the above is working as I intend. What I'm trying to figure out is how to validate that a Card can only belong to a single Expansion. I want the following to be invalid: some_cards = FooCard.all( :limit => 25 ) first_expansion = Expansion.new second_expansion = Expansion.new first_expansion.cards = some_cards second_expansion.cards = some_cards first_expansion.save # Valid second_expansion.save # **Should be invalid** However, GameSets should allow this behavior: other_cards = FooCard.all( :limit => 10 ) first_set = GameSet.new second_set = GameSet.new first_set.cards = other_cards # Valid second_set.cards = other_cards # Also valid I'm guessing that a validates_uniqueness_of call is needed somewhere, but I'm not sure where to put it. Any suggestions? UPDATE 1 I modified the Expansion class as sugested: class Expansion < Set validate :validates_uniqueness_of_cards def validates_uniqueness_of_cards membership = Membership.find( :first, :include => :set, :conditions => [ "card_id IN (?) AND sets.type = ?", self.cards.map(&:id), "Expansion" ] ) errors.add_to_base("a Card can only belong to a single Expansion") unless membership.nil? end end This works when creating initial expansions to validate that no current expansions contain the cards. However, this (falsely) invalidates future updates to the expansion with new cards. In other words: old_exp = Expansion.find(1) old_exp.card_ids # returns [1,2,3,4,5] new_exp = Expansion.new new_exp.card_ids = [6,7,8,9,10] new_exp.save # returns true new_exp.card_ids << [11,12] # no other Expansion contains these cards new_exp.valid? # returns false ... SHOULD be true

    Read the article

  • Ensuring uniqueness on a varchar greater than 255 in MYSQL/InnoDB

    - by Vijay Boyapati
    I have a table which contains HTML entries for news pages. When I initially designed it I used URL as the primary key. I've learned the error of my ways because left-joining is super slow. So I want to redesign the table with an integer (id) primary key, but still keep the rows unique based on the URL. The problem is that I've found URLs longer than 255 characters, and MySQL isn't letting my create a key on the URL. I'm using an InnoDB/UTF8 table. From what I understand it's using multiple bytes per character with a limit of 766 bytes for the key (in InnoDB). I would really love suggestions on an elegant way of keeping the rows unique based on URL, while using an integer primary key. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Merging rows with uniqueness constraints

    - by Flambino
    I've got a little time-tracking web app (implemented in Rails 3.2.8 & MySQL). The app has several users who add their time to specific tasks, on a given date. The system is set up so a user can only have 1 time entry (i.e. row) per task per date. I.e. if you add time twice on the same task and date, it'll add time to the existing row, rather than create a new one. Now I'm looking to merge 2 tasks. In the simplest terms, merging task ID 2 into task ID 1 would take this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 10 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 10 | 1 | 2 | 2012-10-29 5 | 3 | 2 | 2012-10-29 and change it into this time | user_id | task_id | date ------+----------+----------+----------- 20 | 1 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- time values merged (summed) 15 | 2 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- no change 5 | 3 | 1 | 2012-10-29 <-- task_id changed (no merging necessary) I.e. merge by summing the time values, where the given user_id/date/task combo would conflict. I figure I can use a unique constraint to do a ON DUPLICATE KEY UPDATE ... if I do an insert for every task_id=2 entry. But that seems pretty inelegant. I've also tried to figure a way to first update all the rows in task 1 with the summed-up times, but I can't quite figure that one out. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Rails 3: Validate combined values

    - by Cimm
    In Rails 2.x you can use validations to make sure you have a unique combined value like this: validates_uniqueness_of :husband, :scope => :wife In the corresponding migration it could look like this: add_index :family, [:husband, :wife], :unique => true This would make sure the husband/wife combination is unique in the database. Now, in Rails 3 the validation syntax changed and the scope attribute seems to be gone. It now looks like: validates :husband, :presence => true Any idea how I can achieve the combined validation in Rails 3? The Rails 2.x validations still work in Rails 3 so I can still use the first example but it looks so "old", are there better ways?

    Read the article

  • Are hash collisions with different file sizes just as likely as same file size?

    - by rwmnau
    I'm hashing a large number of files, and to avoid hash collisions, I'm also storing a file's original size - that way, even if there's a hash collision, it's extremely unlikely that the file sizes will also be identical. Is this sound (a hash collision is equally likely to be of any size), or do I need another piece of information (if a collision is more likely to also be the same length as the original). Or, more generally: Is every file just as likely to produce a particular hash, regardless of original file size?

    Read the article

  • Are has collisions with different file sizes just as likely as same file size?

    - by rwmnau
    I'm hashing a large number of files, and to avoid hash collisions, I'm also storing a file's original size - that way, even if there's a hash collision, it's extrememly unlikely that the file sizes will also be identical. Is this sound (a hash collision is equally likely to be of any size), or do I need another piece of information (if a collision is more likely to also be the same length as the original). Or, more generally: Is every file just as likely to produce a particular hash, regardless of original file size?

    Read the article

  • How important is the uniqueness of your domain name?

    - by Corey
    I've finally come up with a domain name that I like and is available. The name is nonsensical and doesn't translate into anything meaningful in any language, as far as I know. It's something like "FOOBARite". (Don't steal that!) I'm wondering about a few search issues. Results-wise, searching for it in Google currently returns about 15k results, none of which are relevant (dead Twitter pages, various unpopular online handles, and botched french translations). However, Google starts off with a spelling suggestion, which removes a letter. ("Did you mean: FOOBARit?") That returns about 250k results for several different and unrelated websites/organizations by that name. One is some technology provider, another is a sign-language organization, another is the name of a font... None of them seem particularly popular, there's not that much activity on any of those pages. Anyway, the two are pronounced differently, they're just a letter off. Should I go with my idea or is this one-letter variation going to cause me problems? If my site becomes ranked well enough, will Google's spelling suggestion go away? I don't want users to search for my site name and be told they've spelled it wrong.

    Read the article

  • How do I get a jQuery dialog window to display only if a form validates when I click the submit butt

    - by user338413
    I've got a form that is using jQuery validation. When the user clicks the submit button, a dialog window displays thatshows the fields the user filled out along with the data the user entered. It asks the user if this information is correct. If it is, the user clicks the submit button in the dialog window and the form is submitted. If the user clicks the 'Fix it' button, the dialog window closes and the user returns to the form. My problem is my dialog window displays when the user clicks the form's submit button even if there are errors in the form. I only want to display the dialog window if the form data is validated by jQuery. How do I do this? I'm thinking of something like: if ((#form).validates() == true) { $('#verification_dialog').dialog('open'); } Is there a way in jQuery to determine whether the whole form has validated? Or do I have to create my own function to do this?

    Read the article

  • Is the .Net HashSet uniqueness calculation completely based on Hash Codes?

    - by RobV
    I was wondering whether the .Net HashSet<T> is based completely on hash codes or whether it uses equality as well? I have a particular class that I may potentially instantiate millions of instances of and there is a reasonable chance that some hash codes will collide at that point. I'm considering using HashSet's to store some instances of this class and am wondering if it's actually worth doing - if the uniqueness of an element is only determined on its hash code then that's of no use to me for real applications MSDN documentation seems to be rather vague on this topic - any enlightenment would be appreciated

    Read the article

  • How can I compute the average cost for this solution of the element uniqueness problem?

    - by Alceu Costa
    In the book Introduction to the Design & Analysis of Algorithms, the following solution is proposed to the element uniqueness problem: ALGORITHM UniqueElements(A[0 .. n-1]) // Determines whether all the elements in a given array are distinct // Input: An array A[0 .. n-1] // Output: Returns "true" if all the elements in A are distinct // and false otherwise. for i := 0 to n - 2 do for j := i + 1 to n - 1 do if A[i] = A[j] return false return true How can I compute the average cost (i.e. number of comparisons for a given n) for this algorithm? What is a reasonable assumption about the input?

    Read the article

  • How do I guarantee row uniqueness in MySQL without the use of a UNIQUE constraint?

    - by MalcomTucker
    Hi I have some fairly simple requirements but I'm not sure how I implement them: I have multiple concurrent threads running the same query The query supplies a 'string' value - if it exists in the table, the query should return the id of the matching row, if not the query should insert the 'string' value and return the last inserted id The 'string' column is (and must be) a text column (it's bigger than varchar 255) so I cannot set it as unique - uniqueness must be enforced through the access mechanism The query needs to be in stored procedure format (which doesnt support table locks in MySQL) How can I guarantee that 'string' is unique? How can I prevent other threads writing to the table after another thread has read it and found no matching 'string' item? Thanks for any advice..

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord validates... custom field name.

    - by Dmitriy Likhten
    I would like to fix up some error messages my site generates. Here is the problem: class Brand < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :foo ... end My goal is to make a message "Ticket description is required" instead of "Foo is required" or may not be blank, or whatever. The reason this is so important is because lets say previously the field was ticket_summary. That was great and the server was coded to use that, but now due to crazy-insane business analysts it has been determined that ticket_summary is a poor name, and should be ticket_description. Now I don't necessarily want to have my db be driven by the user requirements for field names, especially since they can change frequently without functionality changes. Is there a mechanism for providing this already?

    Read the article

  • how can i set up a uniqueness constraint in mysql for columns that can be null?

    - by user299689
    I know that in MySQL, UNIQUE constraits don't treat NULL values as equal. So if I have a unique constraint on ColumnX, then two separate rows can have values of NULL for ColumnX and this wouldn't violate the constraint. How can I work around this? I can't just set the value to an arbitrary constant that I can flag, because ColumnX in my case is actually a foreign key to another table. What are my options here? Please note that this table also has an "id" column that is its primary key. Since I'm using Ruby on Rails, it's important to keep this id column as the primary key. Note 2: In reality, my unique key encompasses many columns, and some of them have to be null, because they are foreign keys, and only one of them should be non-null. What I'm actually trying to do is to "simulate" a polymorphic relationship in a way that keep referential integrity in the db, but using the technique outlined in the first part of the question asked here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/922184/why-can-you-not-have-a-foreign-key-in-a-polymorphic-association

    Read the article

  • ODI 12c - Parallel Table Load

    - by David Allan
    In this post we will look at the ODI 12c capability of parallel table load from the aspect of the mapping developer and the knowledge module developer - two quite different viewpoints. This is about parallel table loading which isn't to be confused with loading multiple targets per se. It supports the ability for ODI mappings to be executed concurrently especially if there is an overlap of the datastores that they access, so any temporary resources created may be uniquely constructed by ODI. Temporary objects can be anything basically - common examples are staging tables, indexes, views, directories - anything in the ETL to help the data integration flow do its job. In ODI 11g users found a few workarounds (such as changing the technology prefixes - see here) to build unique temporary names but it was more of a challenge in error cases. ODI 12c mappings by default operate exactly as they did in ODI 11g with respect to these temporary names (this is also true for upgraded interfaces and scenarios) but can be configured to support the uniqueness capabilities. We will look at this feature from two aspects; that of a mapping developer and that of a developer (of procedures or KMs). 1. Firstly as a Mapping Developer..... 1.1 Control when uniqueness is enabled A new property is available to set unique name generation on/off. When unique names have been enabled for a mapping, all temporary names used by the collection and integration objects will be generated using unique names. This property is presented as a check-box in the Property Inspector for a deployment specification. 1.2 Handle cleanup after successful execution Provided that all temporary objects that are created have a corresponding drop statement then all of the temporary objects should be removed during a successful execution. This should be the case with the KMs developed by Oracle. 1.3 Handle cleanup after unsuccessful execution If an execution failed in ODI 11g then temporary tables would have been left around and cleaned up in the subsequent run. In ODI 12c, KM tasks can now have a cleanup-type task which is executed even after a failure in the main tasks. These cleanup tasks will be executed even on failure if the property 'Remove Temporary Objects on Error' is set. If the agent was to crash and not be able to execute this task, then there is an ODI tool (OdiRemoveTemporaryObjects here) you can invoke to cleanup the tables - it supports date ranges and the like. That's all there is to it from the aspect of the mapping developer it's much, much simpler and straightforward. You can now execute the same mapping concurrently or execute many mappings using the same resource concurrently without worrying about conflict.  2. Secondly as a Procedure or KM Developer..... In the ODI Operator the executed code shows the actual name that is generated - you can also see the runtime code prior to execution (introduced in 11.1.1.7), for example below in the code type I selected 'Pre-executed Code' this lets you see the code about to be processed and you can also see the executed code (which is the default view). References to the collection (C$) and integration (I$) names will be automatically made unique by using the odiRef APIs - these objects will have unique names whenever concurrency has been enabled for a particular mapping deployment specification. It's also possible to use name uniqueness functions in procedures and your own KMs. 2.1 New uniqueness tags  You can also make your own temporary objects have unique names by explicitly including either %UNIQUE_STEP_TAG or %UNIQUE_SESSION_TAG in the name passed to calls to the odiRef APIs. Such names would always include the unique tag regardless of the concurrency setting. To illustrate, let's look at the getObjectName() method. At <% expansion time, this API will append %UNIQUE_STEP_TAG to the object name for collection and integration tables. The name parameter passed to this API may contain  %UNIQUE_STEP_TAG or %UNIQUE_SESSION_TAG. This API always generates to the <? version of getObjectName() At execution time this API will replace the unique tag macros with a string that is unique to the current execution scope. The returned name will conform to the name-length restriction for the target technology, and its pattern for the unique tag. Any necessary truncation will be performed against the initial name for the object and any other fixed text that may have been specified. Examples are:- <?=odiRef.getObjectName("L", "%COL_PRFEMP%UNIQUE_STEP_TAG", "D")?> SCOTT.C$_EABH7QI1BR1EQI3M76PG9SIMBQQ <?=odiRef.getObjectName("L", "EMP%UNIQUE_STEP_TAG_AE", "D")?> SCOTT.EMPAO96Q2JEKO0FTHQP77TMSAIOSR_ Methods which have this kind of support include getFrom, getTableName, getTable, getObjectShortName and getTemporaryIndex. There are APIs for retrieving this tag info also, the getInfo API has been extended with the following properties (the UNIQUE* properties can also be used in ODI procedures); UNIQUE_STEP_TAG - Returns the unique value for the current step scope, e.g. 5rvmd8hOIy7OU2o1FhsF61 Note that this will be a different value for each loop-iteration when the step is in a loop. UNIQUE_SESSION_TAG - Returns the unique value for the current session scope, e.g. 6N38vXLrgjwUwT5MseHHY9 IS_CONCURRENT - Returns info about the current mapping, will return 0 or 1 (only in % phase) GUID_SRC_SET - Returns the UUID for the current source set/execution unit (only in % phase) The getPop API has been extended with the IS_CONCURRENT property which returns info about an mapping, will return 0 or 1.  2.2 Additional APIs Some new APIs are provided including getFormattedName which will allow KM developers to construct a name from fixed-text or ODI symbols that can be optionally truncate to a max length and use a specific encoding for the unique tag. It has syntax getFormattedName(String pName[, String pTechnologyCode]) This API is available at both the % and the ? phase.  The format string can contain the ODI prefixes that are available for getObjectName(), e.g. %INT_PRF, %COL_PRF, %ERR_PRF, %IDX_PRF alongwith %UNIQUE_STEP_TAG or %UNIQUE_SESSION_TAG. The latter tags will be expanded into a unique string according to the specified technology. Calls to this API within the same execution context are guaranteed to return the same unique name provided that the same parameters are passed to the call. e.g. <%=odiRef.getFormattedName("%COL_PRFMY_TABLE%UNIQUE_STEP_TAG_AE", "ORACLE")%> <?=odiRef.getFormattedName("%COL_PRFMY_TABLE%UNIQUE_STEP_TAG_AE", "ORACLE")?> C$_MY_TAB7wDiBe80vBog1auacS1xB_AE <?=odiRef.getFormattedName("%COL_PRFMY_TABLE%UNIQUE_STEP_TAG.log", "FILE")?> C2_MY_TAB7wDiBe80vBog1auacS1xB.log 2.3 Name length generation  As part of name generation, the length of the generated name will be compared with the maximum length for the target technology and truncation may need to be applied. When a unique tag is included in the generated string it is important that uniqueness is not compromised by truncation of the unique tag. When a unique tag is NOT part of the generated name, the name will be truncated by removing characters from the end - this is the existing 11g algorithm. When a unique tag is included, the algorithm will first truncate the <postfix> and if necessary  the <prefix>. It is recommended that users will ensure there is sufficient uniqueness in the <prefix> section to ensure uniqueness of the final resultant name. SUMMARY To summarize, ODI 12c make it much simpler to utilize mappings in concurrent cases and provides APIs for helping developing any procedures or custom knowledge modules in such a way they can be used in highly concurrent, parallel scenarios. 

    Read the article

  • Having different database sorting order (default_scope) for two different views

    - by Juniper747
    In my model (pins.rb), I have two sorting orders: default_scope order: 'pins.featured DESC' #for adding featured posts to the top of a list default_scope order: 'pins.created_at DESC' #for adding the remaining posts beneath the featured posts This sorting order (above) is how I want my 'pins view' (index.html.erb) to look. Which is just a list of ALL user posts. In my 'users view' (show.html.erb) I am using the same model (pins.rb) to list only current_user pins. HOWEVER, I want to sorting order to ignore the "featured" default scope and only use the second scope: default_scope order: 'pins.created_at DESC' How can I accomplish this? I tried doing something like this: default_scope order: 'pins.featured DESC', only: :index default_scope order: 'pins.created_at DESC' But that didn't fly... UPDATE I updated my model to define a scope: scope :featy, order: 'pins.featured DESC' default_scope order: 'pins.created_at DESC' And updated my pins view to: <%= render @pins.featy %> However, now when I open my pins view, I get the error: undefined method `featy' for #<Array:0x00000100ddbc78> UPDATE 2 User.rb class User < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :name, :email, :username, :password, :password_confirmation, :avatar, :password_reset_token, :password_reset_sent_at has_secure_password has_many :pins, dependent: :destroy #destroys user posts when user is destroyed # has_many :featured_pins, order: 'featured DESC', class_name: "Pin", source: :pin has_attached_file :avatar, :styles => { :medium => "300x300#", :thumb => "120x120#" } before_save { |user| user.email = user.email.downcase } before_save { |user| user.username = user.username.downcase } before_save :create_remember_token before_save :capitalize_name validates :name, presence: true, length: { maximum: 50 } VALID_EMAIL_REGEX = /\A[\w+\-.]+@[a-z\d\-.]+\.[a-z]+\z/i VALID_USERNAME_REGEX = /^[A-Za-z0-9]+(?:[_][A-Za-z0-9]+)*$/ validates :email, presence: true, format: { with: VALID_EMAIL_REGEX }, uniqueness: { case_sensitive: false } validates :username, presence: true, format: { with: VALID_USERNAME_REGEX }, uniqueness: { case_sensitive: false } validates :password, length: { minimum: 6 }, on: :create #on create, because was causing erros on pw_reset Pin.rb class Pin < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :content, :title, :privacy, :date, :dark, :bright, :fragmented, :hashtag, :emotion, :user_id, :imagesource, :imageowner, :featured belongs_to :user before_save :capitalize_title before_validation :generate_slug validates :content, presence: true, length: { maximum: 8000 } validates :title, presence: true, length: { maximum: 24 } validates :imagesource, presence: { message: "Please search and choose an image" }, length: { maximum: 255 } validates_inclusion_of :privacy, :in => [true, false] validates :slug, uniqueness: true, presence: true, exclusion: {in: %w[signup signin signout home info privacy]} # for sorting featured and newest posts first default_scope order: 'pins.created_at DESC' scope :featured_order, order: 'pins.featured DESC' def to_param slug # or "#{id}-#{name}".parameterize end def generate_slug # makes the url slug address bar freindly self.slug ||= loop do random_token = Digest::MD5.hexdigest(Time.zone.now.to_s + title)[0..9]+"-"+"#{title}".parameterize break random_token unless Pin.where(slug: random_token).exists? end end protected def capitalize_title self.title = title.split.map(&:capitalize).join(' ') end end users_controller.rb class UsersController < ApplicationController before_filter :signed_in_user, only: [:edit, :update, :show] before_filter :correct_user, only: [:edit, :update, :show] before_filter :admin_user, only: :destroy def index if !current_user.admin? redirect_to root_path end end def menu @user = current_user end def show @user = User.find(params[:id]) @pins = @user.pins current_user.touch(:last_log_in) #sets the last log in time if [email protected]? render 'pages/info/' end end def new @user = User.new end pins_controller.rb class PinsController < ApplicationController before_filter :signed_in_user, except: [:show] # GET /pins, GET /pins.json def index #Live Feed @pins = Pin.all @featured_pins = Pin.featured_order respond_to do |format| format.html # index.html.erb format.json { render json: @pins } end end # GET /pins, GET /pins.json def show #single Pin View @pin = Pin.find_by_slug!(params[:id]) require 'uri' #this gets the photo's id from the stored uri @image_id = URI(@pin.imagesource).path.split('/').second if @pin.privacy == true #check for private pins if signed_in? if @pin.user_id == current_user.id respond_to do |format| format.html # show.html.erb format.json { render json: @pin } end else redirect_to home_path, notice: "Prohibited 1" end else redirect_to home_path, notice: "Prohibited 2" end else respond_to do |format| format.html # show.html.erb format.json { render json: @pin } end end end # GET /pins, GET /pins.json def new @pin = current_user.pins.new respond_to do |format| format.html # new.html.erb format.json { render json: @pin } end end # GET /pins/1/edit def edit @pin = current_user.pins.find_by_slug!(params[:id]) end Finally, on my index.html.erb I have: <%= render @featured_pins %>

    Read the article

  • Ruby forwarding method calls

    - by JP
    I have an instance of a master class which generates instances of a subclass, these subclasses need to forward some method calls back to the master instance. At the moment I have code looking something like this, but it feels like I should be able to do the same thing more efficiently (maybe with method_missing?) class Master def initalize(mynum) @mynum = mynum end def one_thing(subinstance) "One thing with #{subinstance.var} from #{@mynum}" end def four_things(subinstance) "Four things with #{subinstance.var} from #{@mynum}" end def many_things(times,subinstance) "#{times} things with #{subinstance.var} from #{@mynum}" end def make_a_sub(uniqueness) Subthing.new(uniqueness,self) end class Subthing def initialize(uniqueness,master) @u = uniqueness @master = master end # Here I'm forwarding method calls def one_thing master.one_thing(self) end def four_things master.four_things(self) end def many_things(times) master.many_things(times,self) end end end m = Master.new(42) s = m.make_a_sub("very") s.one_thing === m.one_thing(s) s.many_things(8) === m.many_things(8,s) I hope you can see what's going on here. I would use method_missing, but I'm not sure how to cope with the possibility of some calls having arguments and some not (I can't really rearrange the order of the arguments to the Master methods either) Thanks for reading!

    Read the article

  • xVal and Regular Expression Match

    - by gmcalab
    I am using xVal to validate my forms in asp.net MVC 1.0 Not sure why my regular expression isn't validating correctly. It validates with the value of "12345" It validates with the value of "12345 " It validates with the value of "12345 -" It validates with the value of "12345 -1" It validates with the value of "12345 -12" ... etc For a zip code I expect one of the two patterns: 12345 or 12345 -1234 Here are the two regex I tried: (\d{5})((( -)(\d{4}))?) (\d{5})|(\d{5} -\d{4}) Here is my MetaData class for xVal [MetadataType(typeof(TIDServiceMetadata))] public class TIDServiceStep : TIDDetail { public class TIDServiceMetadata { [Required(ErrorMessage = " [Required] ")] [RegularExpression(@"(\d{5})|(\d{5} -\d{4})", ErrorMessage = " Invalid Zip ")] public string Zip { get; set; } } } Here is my aspx page: <% Html.BeginForm("Edit", "Profile", FormMethod.Post); %> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td> <h6>Zip:</h6> </td> <td> <%= Html.TextBox("Profile.Zip")%> </td> </tr> <tr> <td> <input type="submit"/> </td> </tr> </table> <% Html.EndForm(); %> <% Html.Telerik().ScriptRegistrar() .OnDocumentReady(() => { %> <%= Html.ClientSideValidation<TIDProfileStep>("Profile").SuppressScriptTags() %> <% }); %>

    Read the article

  • Why it is called "hash table", or "hash function"? Hash doesn't make any sense to me here

    - by Saeed Neamati
    It's now about 4 years of development that I'm using, hearing, talking about, and implementing hash tables and hash functions. But I really never understand why it's called hash? I remember the first days I started programming, this term was kind'of cumbersome terminology to me. I never figured out what is it, based on its name. I just experimentally understood what it does and why and when should we use it. However, I still sometimes try to figure out why it's called hash. I have no problem with table or function and to be honest, they are pretty deductive, rational terms. However, I think better words could be used instead of hash, like key, or uniqueness. Don't key table or uniqueness table. According to my dictionary, hash means: Fried dish of potato and meats (highly irrelevant) # symbol (AKA number sign, pound sign, etc.) (still irrelevant, maybe just a mis-nomenclature) Apply algorithm to character string (still has nothing to do with uniqueness, which is the most important feature of a hash table) Cut food Another term for hashish Does anyone know why it's called hash?

    Read the article

  • Rspec and Rails 3 - Problem Validating Nested Attribute Collection Size

    - by MunkiPhD
    When I create my Rspec tests, I keep getting a validation of false as opposed to true for the following tests. I've tried everything and the following is the measly code that I have now - so if it's waaaaay wrong, that's why. class Master < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :name, :specific_size # Associations ---------------------- has_many :line_items accepts_nested_attributes_for :line_items, :allow_destroy => true, :reject_if => lambda { |a| a[:item_id].blank? } # Validations ----------------------- validates :name, :presence => true, :length => {:minimum => 3, :maximum => 30} validates :specific_size, :presence => true, :length => {:minimum => 4, :maximum => 30} validate :verify_items_count def verify_items_count if self.line_items.size < 2 errors.add(:base, "Not enough items to create a master") end end end And here it the items model: class LineItem < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :specific_size, :other_item_type_id # Validations -------------------- validates :other_item_type_id, :presence => true validates :master_id, :presence => true validates :specific_size, :presence => true # Associations --------------------- belongs_to :other_item_type belongs_to :master end The RSpec Tests: before(:each) do @master_lines = [] @master_lines << LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 1, :master_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) @master_lines << LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 2, :master_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) @attr = {:name => "Some Master", :specific_size => "1 giga"} end it "should create a new instance given a valid name and specific size" do @master = Master.create(@attr) line_item_one = @master.line_items.build(:other_item_type_id => 1, :specific_size => 1) line_item_two = @master.line_items.build(:other_item_type_id => 2, :specific_size => 2) @master.line_items.size === 2 @master.should be_valid end it "should have at least two items to be valid" do master = Master.new(:name => "test name", :specific_size => "1 mega") master_item_one = LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 1, :specific_size => 2) master_item_two = LineItem.new(:other_item_type_id => 2, :specific_size => 1) master.line_items << master_item_one master.should_not be_valid master.line_items << master_item_two master.line_items.size.should === 2 master.should be_valid end I'm very new to Rspec and Rails - and I've been failing at this for the past couple of hours. Thanks for any help in advance.

    Read the article

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