On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 08:53 +0000, Colin Law wrote: > On 23 March 2010 02:15, Craig White <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2010-03-23 at 03:02 +0100, Tony Tony wrote: > >> Craig White wrote: > >> > >> > I would have a table called pricing and have a column that had the > >> > customer_id and thus you might have 2 (or more) prices for an item but > >> > only one for a specific customer or default to the one that is not tied > >> > to a specific customer. > >> > >> Hi Craig! > >> > >> I don't think this would work as there are quite a number of clients > >> (over 25) who currently have a different price per product. In the > >> future there might be additional clients with custom pricing depending > >> on how much volume they push. > >> > >> If I were to implement your suggestion I would have to have 25+ fields > >> (pricing_1, pricing_2, pricing_3, etc.) which I don't think is the > >> correct approach for this. Did I misunderstand your suggestion? > > ---- > > yes, you misunderstood... sorry if I wasn't clear enough. Something like > > this, definitely not tested and perhaps you can get it down to a single > > query. > > > > Class Pricing > > has_one :customer > > belongs_to :item > > Should that be belongs_to: customer rather than has_one, along with > customer has_many pricings, and item has_many pricings? > I would have used class Price rather then Pricings but that is a > matter of personal preference. ---- that's an interesting question and probably reflects on the fuzziness of my understanding of the difference between belongs_to and has_one. While I can clearly see that the intent is that the difference is which table has the referencing id, I tend to think of belongs_to as a 'must' and has_one as a 'may' and in my original answer, I was contemplating a price for each item that was not associated with any customer. If it were left to me, I would probably create a 'retail' customer and actually indicated that in my follow up answer. ---- > > > > > id > > price > > customer_id > > You will need an item_id also ---- yes ---- > > > > def self.item_price(item, customer) > > if Price.find(:first, :conditions => ["item_id = ? AND customer_id > > = ?", item, customer']) then > > return Price.find(:first, :conditions => ["item_id = ? AND > > customer_id = ?", item, customer']).price > > else > > return Price.find(:first, :conditions => ["item_id = ? AND > > customer_id = NULL", item]).price > > end > > end > > This could be done as a named scope which might make for a neater solution. ---- probably true and probably how I would end up doing it. It was just a top of my head answer and the defined method could easily be converted into a named_scope.
Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. -- 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
