Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>Your method is returning the result of <code>task_names.each</code>. <code>each</code> always returns what it started with. So you need to actually return your result.</p> <p>Also, you are recreating you <code>to_do_this_week</code> array on every iteration of the loop, which would wipe it clean.</p> <pre><code>def tasks_for_week(week, *task_names) to_do_this_week = [] task_names.each do |task_name| if some_condition to_do_this_week &lt;&lt; task_name end end to_do_this_week end </code></pre> <p>Or this:</p> <pre><code>def tasks_for_week(week, *task_names) returning [] do |to_do_this_week| task_names.each do |task_name| if some_condition to_do_this_week &lt;&lt; task_name end end end end </code></pre> <p>But I think this is probably your best best:</p> <pre><code>def tasks_for_week(week, *task_names) task_names.find_all do |task_name| some_condition end end </code></pre> <p>That last one uses <code>find_all</code> which iterates over an array and will return a new array populated with any objects that the block return a true value for.</p> <p>Lastly, your conditional logic is a bit crazy too. You can use the <code>[]</code> accessors for active record fields in a dynamic way. And it's usually clearer to use the positive case instead of the double negative of <code>unless something.nil?</code>. And if this is a common use for creating a range, it might be best to farm that out to a method:</p> <pre><code>def week_range_for_task(task) self["#{task_name}_week_min"]..self["#{task_name}_week_max"] end ... self[task_name] &amp;&amp; week_range_for_task(task_name).include?(week) </code></pre> <p>Making the whole method:</p> <pre><code>def tasks_for_week(week, *task_names) task_names.find_all do |task_name| self[task_name] &amp;&amp; week_range_for_task(task_name).include?(week) end end </code></pre>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PORefactoring in model: what's going wrong?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. USAlex Wayne
    1. USAlex Wayne
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PORefactoring in model: what's going wrong?
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTAcceptedByOriginator
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COThanks again Squeegy for taking the time to refactor this so fully. Really helping me understand the basics. I assume that I can use select in place of find_all.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USThe Pied Pipes
    2. COCode above didn't quite work since self["task_name"] will always fail (needs to be task_name_weeks_min and task_name_weeks_max). I've included the amended code below. Can you see how to refactor any further?
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USThe Pied Pipes
    3. COwell self[task_name] was supposed to mirror "unless read_attribute(task_name).nil?". But it appears you have the right idea now. Looks good.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USAlex Wayne
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload