I'm wondering if anyone has experience using Ransack with HABTM relationships. My app has photos
which have a habtm relationship with terms
(terms are like tags). Here's a simplified explanation of what I'm experiencing:
I have two photos: Photo 1 and Photo 2. They have the following terms:
Photo 1: A, B, C
Photo 2: A, B, D
I built a ransack form, and I make checkboxes in the search form for all the terms, like so:
- terms.each do |t|
= check_box_tag 'q[terms_id_in][]', t.id
If I use: q[terms_id_in][]
and I check "A, C" my results are Photo 1 and Photo 2. I only want Photo 1, because I asked for A and C, in this query I don't care about B or D but I want both A and C to be present on a given result.
If I use q[terms_id_in_all][]
my results are nil, because neither photo includes only A and C. Or, perhaps, because there's only one term per join, so no join matches both A and C. Regardless, I want just Photo 1 to be returned.
If I use any variety of q[terms_id_eq][]
I never get any results, so I don't think that works in this case.
So, given a habtm join, how do you search for models that match the given values while ignoring not given values?
Or, for any rails/sql gurus not familiar with Ransack, how else might you go about creating a search form like I'm describing for a model with a habtm join?
Update: per the answer to related question, I've now gotten as far as constructing an Arel query that correctly matches this. Somehow you're supposed to be able to use Arel nodes as ransackers, or as cdesrosiers pointed out, as custom predicates, but thus far I haven't gotten that working.
Per that answer, I setup the following ransack initializer:
Ransack.configure do |config|
config.add_predicate 'has_terms',
:arel_predicate => 'in',
:formatter => proc {|term_ids| Photo.terms_subquery(term_ids)},
:validator => proc {|v| v.present?},
:compounds => true
end
... and then setup the following method on Photo:
def self.terms_subquery(term_ids)
photos = Arel::Table.new(:photos)
terms = Arel::Table.new(:terms)
photos_terms = Arel::Table.new(:photos_terms)
photos[:id].in(
photos.project(photos[:id])
.join(photos_terms).on(photos[:id].eq(photos_terms[:photo_id]))
.join(terms).on(photos_terms[:term_id].eq(terms[:id]))
.where(terms[:id].in(term_ids))
.group(photos.columns)
.having(terms[:id].count.eq(term_ids.length))
).to_sql
end
Unfortunately this doesn't seem to work. While terms_subquery
produces the correct SQL, the result of Photo.search(:has_terms => [2,5]).result.to_sql
is just "SELECT \"photos\".* FROM \"photos\" "
Class map name. (Optional) Matches all match criteria in the class map. (Optional) Matches one or more match criteria. When you do not specify the match-all or match-any keyword, the default is match-all.
I can use the match with _all, for now, but I'll definitely have to look deeper into the query_string as I'm going to need to use wildcards, in the future. So, it's great to know. An alternative to the now deprecated _all field is the multi match query
Strictly depends on your match requirements logic. Effectively "any" is a logical "or" between match statements while an "all" is a logical "and". Cisco IOS-XE Cupertino 17.7.1: What’s New in Enterprise Swit... Cisco recently announced the availability of the IOS-XE train – IOS-XE Cupertino 17.7.1.
As of version 7.3: If no fields are provided, the multi_match query defaults to the index.query.default_field index settings, which in turn defaults to *. * extracts all fields in the mapping that are eligible to term queries and filters the metadata fields. All extracted fields are then combined to build a query.
With a custom ransack predicate defined as in my answer to your related question, this should work with a simple change to your markup:
- terms.each do |t|
= check_box_tag 'q[id_has_terms][]', t.id
UPDATE
The :formatter
doesn't do what I thought, and seeing as how the Ransack repo makes not a single mention of "subquery," you may not be able to use it for what you're trying to do, after all. All available options seem to be exhausted, so there would be nothing left to do but monkey patch.
Why not just skip ransack and query the "photos" table as you normally would with active record (or even with the Arel query you now have)? You already know the query works. Is there a specific benefit you hoped to reap from using Ransack?
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With