Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PO
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PO
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>How about, create an association:</p> <pre><code>class MyModel &lt; AR::Base belongs_to :my_model has_one :new_version, :class_name =&gt; MyModel # ... end </code></pre> <p>When an edit is made, you basically clone the existing object to a new one. Associate the existing object and the new one, and set a <code>has_edits</code> attribute on the existing object, the <code>pending_approval</code> attribute on the new one.</p> <p>How you treat the objects once the admin approves it depends on whether you have other associations that depend on the id of the original model.</p> <p>In any case, you can reduce your queries to:</p> <pre><code>objects_pending_edits = MyModel.where("has_edits = true").all </code></pre> <p>then with any given one, you can access the new edits with <code>obj.new_version</code>. If you're really wanting to reduce database traffic, eager-load that association.</p>
    singulars
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PORecord changes pend approval by a privileged user; Its like versioning combined with approvals
      singulars
      1. PTQuestion
    1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. USSteve Ross
    plurals
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COSteve, thanks for the input! I like the idea you've had. Its sort of a hybrid of *my next try*, but maybe there is still a problem. What would you do in the case of a ***new*** record that hasn't been approved? My instinct would be to have a `new?` flag on the record that is `true` by default and set to `false` once the first change has been applied. To me the problem would be an added layer of complication. Now you'd have to keep up with that flag on the "admin" side and after a record has been approved for creation, there is a useless column in your model :/
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USIamvery
    2. COA new record that is not approved would not be approved and have `object.new_version.blank?` be true. Right? Although, you could write a helper for this. But the states are: unapproved&&no_new_version (new), approved, unapproved&&new_version, approved. These can be synthesized with the used of the data I proposed unless I'm missing something.
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USSteve Ross
    3. COI gotcha now. I think I had overlooked the `has_edits` flag when I originally went through your post, and just assumed we would know that a record is pending approval if has an associated `new_version`. I think I'm on board with your logic. Your statement "How you treat the objects once the admin approves it depends on whether you have other associations that depend on the id of the original model." worries me a little bit however, it seems like unless treated very carefully, you could mess up some associations.. I guess that's why you should treat them carefully :P
      singulars
      1. PO
      1. USIamvery
 

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