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 <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Trish <[email protected]> wrote: > > See below... > > > Thanks! > > Trish > > > On Aug 3, 11:00 am, Angel Robert Marquez <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > [email protected] > > > > . > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > > > [email protected]<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > > > > > [email protected]><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > [email protected]><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > . > > > > > > 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 [email protected] > > . > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > > > [email protected]><rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > [email protected]> > > > > . > > > > 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 [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<rubyonrails-talk%2Bunsubscrib > > [email protected]> > > . > > 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 [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.
