Fix and Refactor Querying of template.phases and Associations Within OrgAdmin TemplatesController
#3472
+11
−23
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
"Fix ambiguity":
- Prior to this commit, both 'phases.title' and 'sections.title' were included in the `.select()` clause. Since 'sections.title' was listed after 'phases.title', `phases.first.title`, would resolve to the corresponding `sections.title`.
"Remove 1-to-many `.select()` columns":
- A phase can have multiple sections, questions, and question_options, so including columns like `sections.title` in `.select()` is not appropriate.
- No additional handling is needed since we're already using `.includes(sections: { questions: :question_options })` to preload the associations, and `phase.sections.each` etc. handles the associations properly within the view.
Lines 107-111 and 131-136 were identical. Created `def fetch_template_phases` to be called instead.
- Removed `.order()` as it was only applied to the main phases query and did not guarantee the order of associated records (e.g., `question_options`), which are loaded in separate queries.
- `default_scope { order(number: :asc) }` already exists for the `Phase`, `Section`, and `Question` models, ensuring the desired ordering by default.
- The `QuestionOption` model includes `scope :by_number, -> { order(:number) }`, which is now explicitly applied when fetching the `question_options` association to enable proper ordering.
- `.order()` must've been auto-including `:id` in the `.select()` clause. Since it is required, we are explicitly adding it now.
- Replaced `.length > 0` with `.any?` to improve readability and performance. - `.any?` is more efficient for checking if a collection has elements, especially for ActiveRecord associations, as it doesn't require loading the entire collection into memory.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes # .
Changes proposed in this PR:
Address ambiguity and remove one-to-many columns from
.select()clause ca52b91.select()clause. Since 'sections.title' was listed after 'phases.title',phases.first.title, would evaluate to thesections.titlevalue.sections.titlein.select()is not appropriate..includes(sections: { questions: :question_options })to preload the associations, andphase.sections.eachetc. handles the associations properly within the view.Refactor fetching of
template.phasesb18a454phasesqueries within theviewandeditactions. This refactor makes the query accessible by calling thefetch_template_phasesmethod.Fix and refactor ordering of template associations c7921b4
.order()as it was only applied to the main phases query and did not guarantee the order of associated records (e.g.,question_options), which are loaded in separate queries.default_scope { order(number: :asc) }already exists for thePhase,Section, andQuestionmodels, ensuring the desired ordering by default.QuestionOptionmodel includesscope :by_number, -> { order(:number) }, which is now explicitly applied when fetching thequestion_optionsassociation to enable proper ordering..order()must've been auto-including:idin the.select()clause. Since it is required, we are explicitly adding it now.Refactor/optimise check for
question_optionsdb92f3b.length > 0with.any?to improve readability and performance..any?is more efficient for checking if a collection has elements, especially for ActiveRecord associations, as it doesn't require loading the entire collection into memory.