# Naming Conventions for Associations **URL:** \ **Category:** Rails\ **Created:** [March 26, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/naming-conventions-for-associations/163963 "2009-03-26T14:38:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/davidtl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 2:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/naming-conventions-for-associations/163963/1 "2009-03-26T14:38:10Z")
Hi Everyone, I seem to continually have this internal debate on how I should approach naming certain associations on models. For example, let’s say I have a User model and a User has one Status. Although, let’s also say that in my system that ‘Status’ would be ambiguous with other types of statuses, so I want to name the model UserStatus. The problem that I face now, is that when I say a user has one UserStatus, the way I would refer to the associated model would, by default, look like: @user.user\_status I feel that in this context, the double ‘user’ references are redundant. Something like this would be more natural: @user.status (where status is UserStatus) I realize that I can achieve the second syntax in a couple of ways. In the User model, I can change the association name, like: belongs\_to :status, :class\_name =\> ‘UserStatus’, :foreign\_key =\> ‘user\_status\_id’ This works, but it creates the getters/setters: @user.status @user.user\_status\_id I would expect for it to also let me change the id through something like @user.status\_id, not @user.user\_status\_id. So, this only cleans things up half-way. I realize too, that I can rename the actual database foreign key to status\_id instead of user\_status\_id, and then do something like this in my user model: belongs\_to :status, :class\_name =\> ‘UserStatus’ This let’s me access the status and status\_id setters/getters as I would expect. The thing about both of these changes though is that I feel like I’m straying from the conventions, which I really want to try to avoid. I wanted to get a survey of how other people usually approach this. Any advice with this would be appreciated. Thanks, David ---
**Author:** ![davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/davidtl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 8:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/naming-conventions-for-associations/163963/2 "2009-03-26T20:18:42Z")
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:29 AM, David T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I seem to continually have this internal debate on how I should > approach naming certain associations on models. For example, let’s > say I have a User model and a User has one Status. Although, let’s > also say that in my system that ‘Status’ would be ambiguous with other > types of statuses, so I want to name the model UserStatus. The > problem that I face now, is that when I say a user has one UserStatus, > the way I would refer to the associated model would, by default, look > like: Sounds like you want a polymorphic association. [http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/howtos/db-relationships/polymorphic](http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/howtos/db-relationships/polymorphic) – Greg D. [http://destiney.com/](http://destiney.com/) ---
**Author:** ![davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/davidtl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 8:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/naming-conventions-for-associations/163963/3 "2009-03-26T20:35:38Z")
Greg D. wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:29 AM, David T. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > I seem to continually have this internal debate on how I should > > approach naming certain associations on models. �For example, let’s > > say I have a User model and a User has one Status. �Although, let’s > > also say that in my system that ‘Status’ would be ambiguous with other > > types of statuses, so I want to name the model UserStatus. �The > > problem that I face now, is that when I say a user has one UserStatus, > > the way I would refer to the associated model would, by default, look > > like: > > Sounds like you want a polymorphic association. If it were me, I would also consider whether a status warrants a separate model in the first place. I would consider managing a user’s status using a “finite state machine” design pattern. Of course, it’s entirely possible that your design does warrant a separate UserStatus model, but the generic nature of Status leads me to think maybe it doesn’t. I’m just saying that sometimes de-normalizing a database schema can greatly simplify the system design. And in some cases even increase system’s performance. ---
**Author:** ![davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/35a633/32.png) [@davidtl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/davidtl)\ **Post date:** [March 26, 2009, 9:18pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/naming-conventions-for-associations/163963/4 "2009-03-26T21:18:09Z")
Thank you both for your suggestions. For one reason or another, these options didn’t occur to me originally in this situation, even though I was familiar with both. Both make a lot of sense – you’ve given me a lot to think about for now. Thanks!