SessionsHelper in railstutorial.org: Should helpers be general-purpose modules for code not needed in views?
railstutorial.org has a suggestion which strikes me as a little odd.
It suggests this code:
class ApplicationController < ActionController::Base
protect_from_forgery
include SessionsHelper
end
The include SessionsHelper
makes the methods available from ApplicationController
, yes, but it makes them available in any view, as well. I understand that authentication/authorization is cross-cutting, but is this really the bes开发者_运维技巧t place?
That seems to me to be potentially too broad of a scope. Putting code which implements, say, a before_filter
which conditionally redirects (as the railstutorial.org example does) in a module which more commonly contains view helpers seems surprising.
Would functionality not strictly needed in views be better placed in ApplicationController or elsewhere?
Or am I just thinking too much about this?
Indeed, your feeling is correct.
I would implement this the other way around: add the functions sign_in
and current_user
to ApplicationController
(or if you really want to: in a separate module defined in lib
and include it), and then make sure that the current_user
method is available in the view.
In short:
class ApplicationController
helper_method :current_user
def sign_in
end
def current_user
@current_user ||= user_from_remember_token
end
end
Of course, if you have a lot of code to place into your ApplicationController
it can get messy. In that case I would create a file lib\session_management.rb
:
module SessionManagement
def self.included(base)
base.helper_method :current_user
end
def sign_in
..
end
def current_user
..
end
end
and inside your controller you can then just write:
class ApplicationController
include SessionManagement
end
They seem to be taking (sneaky) advantage of the fact that, in Rails, Helpers are just ruby Modules.
Placing behavior that is shared across Controllers in a Module is, in my opinion, good practice. Putting it in a Helper, on the other hand, is potentially misleading and I would avoid it. Place it in a “standard” Module.
This is a philosophical question on the same level as the argument that questions the REST method provided in scaffolding and if A scaffold is worth having at all. You have to consider the fact that the tutorial book in RailsTutorial.org is a get-up-and-go Rails instructive guide. So for the purpose which it serves, I think it does the job.
However, is there a better place to put code needed across controllers and views? Yes, there is.
- Some may follow Michael Hartl form Railstutorial and include the entire
SessionHelper
into theApplicationController
- Others may decide to expose only the essential helpers needed for the view i.e.
sign_in
,sign_out
,current_user
and the like. - I see a suggestion to put such code in the
/lib
directory and include it where needed.
All are viable options. Whichever you take may not matter that much in performance because Ruby would have to parse the file which you want to call (or include) a class, module or method from. What happens is, before any code is executed in a class, Ruby goes through the whole class once to know what's in it. It all depends on what one needs and the design of their app
FWIW, I store the current user in the User class:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
cattr_accessor :current
...
end
This can be referenced in all 3 MVC tiers; it is set in the controller like so (and likewise on login, of course):
def set_current_user
User.current = (session[:user_id]) ? User.find_by_id(session[:user_id]) : nil
end
Among other things, this allows me to have audit logs at the ActiveRecord level that capture the current user (when applicable).
精彩评论