Ruby on Rails

Hi Gustavo

Coincidentally, I was recently doing something similar. Older versions of rails used to evaluate my previous solution using " | " to an ActiveRelation. When this stopped I dont know, or maybe I am just mistaken. In any case, I finally settled on using the squeel gem, the arel docs, I agree are quite horrible.

There are examples on 'OR' queries with squeel on the github readme.

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:18 PM, Gustavo de Sá Carvalho Honorato <gustavohonorato@gmail.com> wrote:

@Rogerio: This way the scopes are merged with AND not OR

@Jeremy: I've read README and I haven't found a way to join scopes with OR, as you mentioned. The only way I found is to join attributes with OR, not scopes. I've tried that hack (where_clauses.join('OR')) before too. The problem is that, for some reason, it don't work when we use the scope chained with a association. 

I've googled a lot and I found a lot of people complaining about this missing feature. I'm a big fan of Rails, but it is a pitty that Rails doesn't give any simple way to do that. I really want to avoid that, but the best solution that I can see is to duplicate the code of the first two scopes on find_visibles.

Thanks,

Gustavo

On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:25 PM, Rogerio Medeiros <argerim@gmail.com> wrote:

try

escopo: find_visibles, lambda { find_in_coverage.find_know_missing}

2012/5/21 Gustavo de Sá Carvalho Honorato <gustavohonorato@gmail.com>

The problem of the first solution is that "find_in_coverage | find_known_missing" combined that way does not return a scope. It returns two arrays each and applies | operator on the result. See: http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/Array.html#method-i-7C

I've looked arel docs (in fact, I just found poor docs). Can you please point me where in docs is explaining how I can construct such query?

Thanks for you attention,

Gustavo

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 3:52 PM, azizmb.in <me@azizmb.in> wrote:

To add to that, if you want to construct complex queries, you should have a look at arel.

On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 12:17 AM, azizmb.in <me@azizmb.in> wrote:

AFAIK, something like this should work:

def find_visibles

    find_in_coverage | find_known_missing

end

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Gustavo de Sá Carvalho Honorato <gustavohonorato@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all!

I've googled all over and I couldn't find anything about chaining scopes with OR instead of the default AND. 

I have an Asset model with the following scopes:

class Asset < ActiveRecord::Base

(...)

  scope :find_in_coverage, lambda { where('timestamp(assets.found_at) >= ?', Asset.found_at_limit) }

  scope :find_unknown_in_coverage, where('assets.asset_type_id IS NULL').find_in_coverage

  scope :find_known_missing, lambda { where('assets.found_at < ? AND assets.asset_type_id IS NOT NULL', Asset.found_at_limit) }

end

I would like to create another scope ("find_visibles") which is the OR of "find_in_coverage" and "find_known_missing" scopes, like that:

scope :find_visibles, find_in_coverage.find_know_missing

The problem is that this method chain uses AND to concatenate WHERE clauses. I need this clauses to be concatenated using OR instead.

How can I do that?

Thanks in advance,

Gustavo Honorato

--
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

--
- Aziz M. Bookwala

Website | Twitter | Github

--
- Aziz M. Bookwala

Website | Twitter | Github

--
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

--

att,

Rogerio

A complicação se descomplica na mesma proporção que fazemos os nós se desatarem ao tecer o conhecimento do saber.

--
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

--
- Aziz M. Bookwala

Website | Twitter | Github

--
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.