Rails carrierwave has_many error

Each User has_one Character. Each Character has_one :profilepicture, of
class Picturething, which holds a Carrierwave mount_uploader to upload a
singe picture. Each Character has_many :standardpictures, also of class
Picturething. Picture upload is handled in views/users/edit, which hits
the
update_pictures method in users_controller.

The idea is to upload one standardpicture at a time. It seems to work,
Rails console > Picturething.all shows that a new Picturething has been
added to the database, and it is correctly displayed on the page. This
is
intended to be one of the character.standardpictures.

The weird thing is, somehow in this whole process, the character’s
:profilepicture is also set to be the same picture that was uploaded. I
don’t understand how this is happening. At no point do I have code
saying
something like “@character.profilepicture = standardpicture”, but
somehow
it has decided that both the first :standardpicture and the
:profilepicture
are one and the same. If the profilepicture exists, which it shouldn’t
yet,
it is displayed on the edit.html.erb page, where I have the line <% if @character.profilepicture.nil? %>. It displays the uploaded picture
here,
so clearly profilepicture is not nil, but it should be.

How is this happening?

character.rb:

has_many :standardpictures, class_name: "Picturething", dependent: :

destroy
accepts_nested_attributes_for :standardpictures
has_one :profilepicture, class_name: “Picturething”, dependent: :
destroy
accepts_nested_attributes_for :profilepicture

picturething.rb:

class Picturething < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to      :character
  mount_uploader  :picture, CharacterpicUploader
  validate        :picture_size
end

app/views/users/edit.html.erb:

<%= form_for :standardpicture, url: update_pictures_user_path,
             method: :post, html: { multipart: true } do |f| %>
  <%= f.label :picture %>
  <%= f.file_field :picture, accept: 

‘image/jpeg,image/gif,image/png’ %>
<%= f.submit “Upload pictures”, class: “btn btn-primary” %>
<% end %>

routes.rb:

post '/users/:callsign/update_pictures', to: 

‘users#update_pictures’,
as: :update_pictures_user

users_controller.rb:

def update_pictures
  @character = Character.find_by(callsign: params[:callsign])
  @user = @character.sociable
  @standardpicture = @character.standardpictures.build(

update_pictures_user_params)
if @standardpicture.save
flash[:success] = “Pictures updated”
redirect_to(edit_user_path(@user))
else
redirect_to(edit_user_path(@user))
end
end # update_pictures

def update_pictures_user_params
  params.require(:standardpicture).permit(:picture)
end

Back to app/views/users/edit.html.erb:

<% if @character.profilepicture.nil? %>
  <p>Select a picture below to use as your profile picture</p>
<% else %>
  <%= image_tag @character.profilepicture.picture %>
<% end %>

On 9 July 2015 at 21:28, Bazley [email protected] wrote:

How is this happening?
picturething.rb:

class Picturething < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to      :character
  mount_uploader  :picture, CharacterpicUploader
  validate        :picture_size
end

You need two belongs_to here, one for each association. Use unique
names, foreign_key and class_name here and in character.rb to specify
which is which. Then obviously two _id fields.

Currently it is conflating the two relationships.

Colin

Thank you Colin, that fixed it. I appreciate your help.
The solution raises an interesting question, fully specified here on SO
if
you’re interested:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/31306347/rails-carrierwave-has-many-error/31345762#31345762

The question is, is a solution possible with only a single column in the
Picturething model? Having two columns seems redundant when they are
only
ever going to hold the same value (the character_id)?

Thanks again!

On 10 July 2015 at 17:34, Bazley [email protected] wrote:

Picturething model? Having two columns seems redundant when they are only
ever going to hold the same value (the character_id)?

It is not redundant as which one it is in tells you which association
it is. You could have an entry in both. If you can’t have an entry
in both then you many not have specified the associations in the best
way. Have just one association and use a different method of saying
which type it is for example.

Colin

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs