Schema.rb naming conventions

Rails
1

going by <http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/
ThroughAssociations>, I think that I have my table names in the schema
squared away, but I’m not convinced. For a many-to-many with
ThroughAssociations between tables foo and bar, is the join table
created named foo_bars by convention? If the table name is foo_bars,
then the corresponding model in app/models would be FooBar, is that
right?

If FooBar is created by me, then, going by the comments in schema.rb,
a migration command was the correct way to create the schema.

I’m just not convinced that I’m following convention on this.

C:\code\strawr\db>
C:\code\strawr\db>
C:\code\strawr\db>type schema.rb

This file is autogenerated. Instead of editing this file, please use

the

migrations feature of ActiveRecord to incrementally modify your

database, and

then regenerate this schema definition.

ActiveRecord::Schema.define(:version => 3) do

create_table “categories”, :force => true do |t|
t.column “category”, :string, :default => “NULL”
end

create_table “category_feeds”, :force => true do |t|
t.column “category_id”, :integer, :default => 0
t.column “feed_id”, :integer, :default => 0
end

create_table “feeds”, :force => true do |t|
t.column “feed”, :string, :default => “NULL”
end

end

C:\code\strawr\db>

thanks,

Thufir

2

The table would be called bars_foos. All join tables are the pluralized
versions of what they’re joining in alphabetical order. Say I have
orders
and customers, the join table will be customers_orders.

You don’t need to post long console feeds (unless we ask for it).
Usually we
can figure out what you want. The longer a post is, the less I feel like
reading it. But that’s just me.

On Dec 14, 2007 2:06 PM, Thufir [email protected] wrote:

a migration command was the correct way to create the schema.
database, and
t.column “feed_id”, :integer, :default => 0

thanks,

Thufir

–
Ryan B.

3

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:11:10 +1030, Ryan B. wrote:

The table would be called bars_foos. All join tables are the pluralized
versions of what they’re joining in alphabetical order. Say I have
orders and customers, the join table will be customers_orders.

Going by http://grover.open2space.com/node/138, the corresponding
model
would CustomerOrder, is that right?

thanks,

Thufir

4

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:11:10 +1030, Ryan B. wrote:

The table would be called bars_foos. All join tables are the pluralized
versions of what they’re joining in alphabetical order. Say I have
orders and customers, the join table will be customers_orders.

And I’ve come across this a few different ways:

Many-to-many

There are two ways to build a many-to-many relationship.

The first way uses a has_many association with the :through option and a
join model, so there are two stages of associations.

class Assignment < ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :programmer # foreign key - programmer_id
belongs_to :project # foreign key - project_id
end
class Programmer < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assignments
has_many :projects, :through => :assignments
end
class Project < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :assignments
has_many :programmers, :through => :assignments
end

<Peak Obsession
ClassMethods.html>

In that example, the name for the join model doesn’t contain the models
which it joins. I also saw a similar naming scheme in the rails recipe
book, I believe. Aaaargh.

-Thufir

5

On Dec 14, 1:51 am, Thufir [email protected] wrote:

The first way uses a has_many association with the :through option and a
join model, so there are two stages of associations.

If you want to use has_many/through, then you should try to come up
with a meaningful name for the relationship. If you are connecting
foos to bars, I would only call the relationship table bars_foos if I
were going to use has_and_belongs_to_many.

Even though it’s now out of fashion, I see no reason not to use habtm
for relationships with no data. If some data appears later, just
rename the table and add some columns.