Hi, I'm a complete newbie to this, I'm afraid. Apologies if this has
been answered elsewhere, but I've had a look, and can't find the
answers I'm looking for, especially for using Rails 2.0.
We have an existing database which we would need to connect Rails to,
and the database structure is not what Rails would seem to expect.
Firstly, tables are not always pluralised.
Secondly, some primary keys are not integers.
Thirdly, some primary keys are composite.
Now if I'm correct, I would need to do the following, eg. for an
"ENTITY" table:
script/generate scaffold entity {field definitions here} --skip-
migration
Is there any way to avoid having to type in all of the field
definitions manually?
Then I would need to edit models/entity.rb and specify the following:
class Entity < ActiveRecord::Base
set_table_name "entity"
set_primary_key "en_key"
end
That should, I believe, take care of the table names not conforming to
the Rails convention. What about the primary keys? Is there anything
else I'm missing?
Sorry to trouble you guys with all of this, but in all honesty, the
documentation seems non-existent for this area - and I'm sure many
people that look to use Rails have existing databases that do not
conform to the conventions.
Just in case it makes any difference, the database I'm looking to use
is a Firebird db.
Thanks in advance for any help you can give me.
Cheers
Ashley
You can define the table name the model should look for within the model
itself with set_table_name.
Secondly, some primary keys are not integers.
You poor soul. Are they numbers (even if held as strings)? If so you can
access the value before it gets type casted, or cast it yourself when
you need it.
Can I assume that there isn't any way to get Rails to read the table
fields, that the fields have to be defined manually when calling
scaffold?
Also, and seemingly more importantly, am I to assume that perhaps
Rails isn't the way to go if our primary keys aren't always integers?
They are often strings, and not just numbers stored as strings, eg
'AL'.
Once again, thanks for your help and for the links you've provided,
they are very much appreciated.
Can anyone give advice on the two questions I've asked? Thanks again
to anyone that can help.
> Thanks very much for your reply Daniel.
> Can I assume that there isn't any way to get Rails to read the table
> fields, that the fields have to be defined manually when calling
> scaffold?
I don't think there is, but maybe a bit of perl or ruby working off
the outputs of a SQL 'describe table' command might do the trick. May
be Dr Nic's Magic Models (Google for it) can tell you how Rails is
interpreting your db without too much effort on your part.
> Also, and seemingly more importantly, am I to assume that perhaps
> Rails isn't the way to go if our primary keys aren't always integers?
> They are often strings, and not just numbers stored as strings, eg
> 'AL'.
I'm not sure if Rails really cares too much about this, but I am
speaking from a position of ignorance. Give it a go and see what
happens.
