Search Results

Search found 1739 results on 70 pages for 'castle activerecord'.

Page 28/70 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

• Ruby on rails - how to retrieve connection strings

  - by Jett

  Hi Everyone, Are there any ways to retrieve the database connection string where my ruby is connected? what i would like to get is the: 1) Database name where the ruby is connected 2) The username of the SQL Server 3) Password of the SQL Server 4) Server name I want to store it in session variables. (I'am using MS SQL Server.) Please help! thanks!

  Read the article

• need help fixing unique key in rails. rails is adding id causing duplicate key

  - by railsnew

  I need some help in fixing the below issue. I had transaction blocks in my rails code like below: @sqlcontact = "INSERT INTO contacts (id,\"cid\", \"hphone\", mphone, provider, cemail, email, sms , mail, phone) VALUES ('"+@id1+"','" + @id1 + "', '"+ params[:hphone] + "', '"+params[:mphone]+ "', '" + params[:provider] + "', '" + params[:cemail]+ "', '" + @varemail+ "', '"+@varsms+ "', '"+ @varmail+"', '"+@varphone+"')" my app was deployed to heroku so I was advised by them to remove transaction blocks. So I changed the above to: @cont = Contact.new(:id => @id1, :cid => @id1, :hphone => params[:hphone], :mphone => params[:mphone], :provider => params[:provider], :cemail => params[:cemail], :email => @varemail, :sms => @varsms, :mail => @varmail, :phone => @varphone) @cont.save My app also already had data stored. Now the problem is that when I try to save a record ...I keep getting the error: duplicate key value violates unique constraint "contacts_pkey" The error also shows the sql query trying to insert data ...however, in that sql query i Do not see id value. As you can see from my code that I am passing the id. then why is rails not accepting it? does it always include its own sequential id? can I not overwrite the default rails magic? and if it does that...does it not look at data that is already in the DB?? I am really stuck here. What should I do? should I just go back to my transaction block

  Read the article

• Remove duplicate records/objects uniquely identified by multiple attributes

  - by keruilin

  I have a model called HeroStatus with the following attributes: id user_id recordable_type hero_type (can be NULL!) recordable_id created_at There are over 100 hero_statuses, and a user can have many hero_statuses, but can't have the same hero_status more than once. A user's hero_status is uniquely identified by the combination of recordable_type + hero_type + recordable_id. What I'm trying to say essentially is that there can't be a duplicate hero_status for a specific user. Unfortunately, I didn't have a validation in place to assure this, so I got some duplicate hero_statuses for users after I made some code changes. For example: user_id = 18 recordable_type = 'Evil' hero_type = 'Halitosis' recordable_id = 1 created_at = '2010-05-03 18:30:30' user_id = 18 recordable_type = 'Evil' hero_type = 'Halitosis' recordable_id = 1 created_at = '2009-03-03 15:30:00' user_id = 18 recordable_type = 'Good' hero_type = 'Hugs' recordable_id = 1 created_at = '2009-02-03 12:30:00' user_id = 18 recordable_type = 'Good' hero_type = NULL recordable_id = 2 created_at = '2009-012-03 08:30:00' (Last two are not a dups obviously. First two are.) So what I want to do is get rid of the duplicate hero_status. Which one? The one with the most-recent date. I have three questions: How do I remove the duplicates using a SQL-only approach? How do I remove the duplicates using a pure Ruby solution? Something similar to this: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2790004/removing-duplicate-objects. How do I put a validation in place to prevent duplicate entries in the future?

  Read the article

• @user.posts.where('status = ?', :unfinished).all returns []

  - by Cheng

  By @user.posts, I can see there is a post with :unfinished status. But @user.posts.where('status = ?', :unfinished).all returns an empty array. I've tried to invoke @user.reload first, but it doesn't resolve the problem. (rdb:568) @user.posts [#<Post id: 1, content: "hehe", user_id: 1, created_at: "2010-04-03 06:16:47", updated_at: "2010-04-03 06:16:47", status: "--- :unfinished\n">] (rdb:568) @user.posts.where('status = ?', :unfinished).all []

  Read the article

• Ruby on Rails Associations

  - by Eef

  Hey all, I am starting to create my sites in Ruby on Rails these days instead of PHP. I have picked up the language easily but still not 100% confident with associations :) I have this situation: User Model has_and_belongs_to_many :roles Roles Model has_and_belongs_to_many :users Journal Model has_and_belongs_to_many :roles So I have a roles_users table and a journals_roles table I can access the user roles like so: user = User.find(1) User.roles This gives me the roles assigned to the user, I can then access the journal model like so: journals = user.roles.first.journals This gets me the journals associated with the user based on the roles. I want to be able to access the journals like so user.journals In my user model I have tried this: def journals self.roles.collect { |role| role.journals }.flatten end This gets me the journals in a flatten array but unfortunately I am unable to access anything associated with journals in this case, e.g in the journals model it has: has_many :items When I try to access user.journals.items it does not work as it is a flatten array which I am trying to access the has_many association. Is it possible to get the user.journals another way other than the way I have shown above with the collect method? Hope you guys understand what I mean, if not let me know and ill try to explain it better. Cheers Eef

  Read the article

• Help me understand Rails eager loading

  - by aaronrussell

  I'm a little confused as to the mechanics of eager loading in active record. Lets say a Book model has many Pages and I fetch a book using this query: @book = Book.find book_id, :include => :pages Now this where I'm confused. My understanding is that @book.pages is already loaded and won't execute another query. But suppose I want to find a specific page, what would I do? @book.pages.find page_id # OR... @book.pages.to_ary.find{|p| p.id == page_id} Am I right in thinking that the first example will execute another query, and therefore making the eager loading pointless, or is active record clever enough to know that it doesn't need to do another query? Also, my second question, is there an argument that in some cases eager loading is more intensive on the database and sometimes multiple small queries will be more efficient that a single large query? Thanks for your thoughts.

  Read the article

• How to store different site parameters in database with Rails?

  - by Igor Alexandrov

  Hello. There are a lot of ways to store site preferences in database. But what if I need to manage datatypes. So some preferences will be boolean, others strings, others integers. How can I organize such store?

  Read the article

• need an empty string, but getting an exception in ruby on rails

  - by Jon

  controller @articles = current_user.articles view <% @articles.each do |article| %> <%= link_to "#{article.title} , #{article.author.name}" articles_path%> <% end %> Sometimes the article has no author, so is null in the database, which results in the following error You have a nil object when you didn't expect it! The error occurred while evaluating nil.name I still want to output the article title in this scenario, whats the best way to do this please?

  Read the article

• Rails 2.3: How to create this SQL into a named_scope

  - by randombits

  Having a bit of difficulty figuring out how to create a named_scope from this SQL query: select * from foo where id NOT IN (select foo_id from bar) AND foo.category = ? ORDER BY RAND() LIMIT 1; Category should be variable to change. What's the most efficient way the named_scope can be written for the problem above?

  Read the article

• Disable validation in an object in Ruby on Rails

  - by J. Pablo Fernández

  I have an object which whether validation happens or not should depend on a boolean, or in another way, validation is optional. I haven't found a clean way to do it. What I'm currently doing is this (disclaimer: you cannot unsee, leave this page if you are too sensitive): def valid? if perform_validation super else super # Call valid? so that callbacks get called and things like encrypting passwords and generating salt in before_validation actually happen errors.clear # but then clear the errors true # and claim ourselves to be valid. This is super hacky! end end Any better ways? Before you point to the :if argument of many validations, this is for a user model which is using authlogic so it has a lot of validation rules. You can stop reading here if you belive me. If you don't, authlogic already sets some :ifs like: :if => :email_changed? which I have to turn into :if => Proc.new {|user| user.email_changed? and user.perform_validation} and in some other cases, since I'm also using authlogic-oid (OpenID) I just don't have control over the :if, authlogic-oid sets it in a way I cannot change it (in time) without further monkey patching. So I have to override seemingly unrelated functions, catch exceptions if a method doesn't exist, etc. The previous hacky solution if the best of my two attempts.

  Read the article

• Rails find_or_create by more than one attribute?

  - by tybro0103

  There is a handy dynamic attribute in active-record called find_or_create_by: Model.find_or_create_by_<attribute>(:<attribute> => "") But what if I need to find_or_create by more than one attribute? Say I have a model to handle a M:M relationship between Group and Member called GroupMember. I could have many instances where member_id = 4, but I don't ever want more than once instance where member_id = 4 and group_id = 7. I'm trying to figure out if it's possible to do something like this: GroupMember.find_or_create(:member_id => 4, :group_id => 7) I realize there may be better ways to handle this, but I like the convenience of the idea of find_or_create.

  Read the article

• Find model records by ID in the order the array of IDs were given

  - by defaye

  I have a query to get the IDs of people in a particular order, say: ids = [1, 3, 5, 9, 6, 2] I then want to fetch those people by Person.find(ids) But they are always fetched in numerical order, I know this by performing: people = Person.find(ids).map(&:id) => [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 9] How can I run this query so that the order is the same as the order of the ids array? I made this task more difficult as I wanted to only perform the query to fetch people once, from the IDs given. So, performing multiple queries is out of the question. I tried something like: ids.each do |i| person = people.where('id = ?', i) But I don't think this works.

  Read the article

• Implicitly create associated model from string

  - by singpolyma

  I have a model Post that has_many :tags I want to do: Post.create({:tags = ['tag1', 'tag2']}) How can I make that work?

  Read the article

• Multiple children in single form in rails

  - by CaptnCraig

  I have a model that has an arbitrary number of children entities. For simplicity lets call the entities Orders and Items. I would like to have a create Orders form where I input the order information, as well as add as many items as I want. If I click the "Add another item" button, a new set of form elements will be added to input the new data, amounts, etc.. I could hack this out in pure javascript, but I'm pretty sure there has to be a more magical, railsish way to do it, maybe with a partial view or something. I'm just a little too new to rails to know what it is. What is the best way to dynamically add the new form elements, and then to access them in the create controller?

  Read the article

• How to always return a set number of records when using find_related_tags with acts-as-taggable-on

  - by hadees

  I'm using the acts-as-taggable-on gem and I need to use find_related_tags on my survey model to get back 3 surveys every time. In the event there aren't always 3 related I need to pick how ever many are related plus some random ones to get to 3. Additionally I have a method I wrote called completed_survey_ids which return an array of survey_ids that shouldn't be used because the user has already completed them. Also there is a rare case that there won't be enough surveys because the user has completed them all so in that event it is okay to return less surveys then requested. I did write a named_scope to handle getting rid of the completed_survey_ids that I think works named_scope :not, lambda { |survey_ids| {:conditions => "id NOT IN (#{survey_ids.join(',')})" } }

  Read the article

• Active Record like functionality on array instance variable

  - by rube_noob

  I would like to write a module that provides active record like functionality on an array instance variable. Examples of its use would be x = Container.new x.include(ContainerModule) x.elements << Element.new x.elements.find id module ContainerModule def initialize(*args) @elements = [] class << @elements def <<(element) #do something with the Container... super(element) end def find(id) #find an element using the Container's id self #=> #<Array..> but I need #<Container..> end end super(*args) end end The problem is that I need the Container object within these methods. Any reference to self will return the Array, not the Container object. Is there any way to do this? Thanks!

  Read the article

• How can I override the attribute assignment in an active record object?

  - by ryeguy

  I know you can do this with virtual attributes, but what if the column actually exists? For example, my model has a raw_topic column. When raw_topic is set, I want artist and song_title to be set based off of raw_topic's contents. Ideally, I'd like to override the raw_topic= method, but rails doesn't seem to like that. What's the proper way of doing this? Is a callback the only way?

  Read the article

• Should I be using callbacks or should I override attributes?

  - by ryeguy

  What is the more "rails-like"? If I want to modify a model's property when it's set, should I do this: def url=(url) #remove session id self[:url] = url.split('?s=')[0] end or this? before_save do |record| #remove session id record.url = record.url.split('?s=')[0] end Is there any benefit for doing it one way or the other? If so, why? If not, which one is generally more common?

  Read the article

• How do I save a transient object that already exists in an NHibernate session?

  - by Daniel T.

  I have a Store that contains a list of Products: var store = new Store(); store.Products.Add(new Product{ Id = 1, Name = "Apples" }; store.Products.Add(new Product{ Id = 2, Name = "Oranges" }; Database.Save(store); Now, I want to edit one of the Products, but with a transient entity. This will be, for example, data from a web browser: // this is what I get from the web browser, this product should // edit the one that's already in the database that has the same Id var product = new Product{ Id = 2, Name = "Mandarin Oranges" }; store.Products.Add(product); Database.Save(store); However, trying to do it this way gives me an error: a different object with the same identifier value was already associated with the session How do I get around this problem?

  Read the article

• rails include with options

  - by holden

  Is it possible to limit an AR :include to say only pull in one record... Item.find(:all, :include => [ :external_ratings, :photos => LIMIT 1 ]) I have a list of items and each item has between 5 and 15 photos. I want to load a photo id into memory, but i don't need all of them, I just want to preview the first one. Is there a way to do this?

  Read the article

• What's a good PHP Active Record library?

  - by Luca Matteis

  I've been using CodeIgniter for some quite time, and I've been extremely happy with its Active Record stuff. It's great to query the database with it. Recently I've started a new project and I can't use such a framework anymore. Is there a simple PHP Active Record library that does its job and gets out of the way (similar to CodeIgniter's version)?

  Read the article

• is this a secure approach in ActiveRecords in Rails?

  - by Adnan

  Hello, I am using the following for my customers to unsubscribe from my mailing list; def index @user = User.find_by_salt(params[:subscribe_code]) if @user.nil? flash[:notice] = "the link is not valid...." render :action => 'index' else Notification.delete_all(:user_id => @user.id) flash[:notice] = "you have been unsubscribed....." redirect_to :controller => 'home' end end my link looks like; http://site.com/unsubscribe/32hj5h2j33j3h333 so the above compares the random string to a field in my user table and accordingly deletes data from the notification table. My question; is this approach secure? is there a better/more efficient way for doing this? All suggestions are welcome.

  Read the article

• Position of object in database

  - by fl00r

  Hi! I have got model Team and I've got (i.e.) team = Team.first :offset => 20. Now I need to get number of position of my team in db table. I can do it in ruby: Team.all.index team #=> 20 But I am sure that I can write it on SQL and it will be less expensive for me with big tables.

  Read the article

• active record relations – who needs it?

  - by M2_

  Well, I`m confused about rails queries. For example: Affiche belongs_to :place Place has_many :affiches We can do this now: @affiches = Affiche.all( :joins => :place ) or @affiches = Affiche.all( :include => :place ) and we will get a lot of extra SELECTs, if there are many affiches: Place Load (0.2ms) SELECT "places".* FROM "places" WHERE "places"."id" = 3 LIMIT 1 Place Load (0.3ms) SELECT "places".* FROM "places" WHERE "places"."id" = 3 LIMIT 1 Place Load (0.8ms) SELECT "places".* FROM "places" WHERE "places"."id" = 444 LIMIT 1 Place Load (1.0ms) SELECT "places".* FROM "places" WHERE "places"."id" = 222 LIMIT 1 ...and so on... And (sic!) with :joins used every SELECT is doubled! Technically we cloud just write like this: @affiches = Affiche.all( ) and the result is totally the same! (Because we have relations declared). The wayout of keeping all data in one query is removing the relations and writing a big string with "LEFT OUTER JOIN", but still there is a problem of grouping data in multy-dimentional array and a problem of similar column names, such as id. What is done wrong? Or what am I doing wrong? UPDATE: Well, i have that string Place Load (2.5ms) SELECT "places".* FROM "places" WHERE ("places"."id" IN (3,444,222,57,663,32,154,20)) and a list of selects one by one id. Strange, but I get these separate selects when I`m doing this in each scope: <%= link_to a.place.name, **a.place**( :id => a.place.friendly_id ) %> the marked a.place is the spot, that produces these extra queries.

  Read the article

• Mysql question: is there something like IN ALL query?

  - by jaycode

  For example this query: SELECT `variants`.* FROM `variants` INNER JOIN `variant_attributes` ON variant_attributes.variant_id = variants.id WHERE (variant_attributes.id IN ('2','5')) And variant has_many variant_attributes What I actually want to do is to find which variant has BOTH variant attributes with ID = 2 and 5. Is this possible with MySQL? Bonus Question, is there a quick way to do this with Ruby on Rails, perhaps with SearchLogic?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >