Having a decrement (-=) function stop at 0 in Ruby
I have the following line of code which very simply decrements a Shareholders number of stocks (integer in the DB) when they sell them to someone else. This works well and as expected.
@selling_shareholder.update_attribute(:number_of_stocks, @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks -= @transaction.number_of_stocks)
Very simply what I'd like to do is have the decrement function stop when the number_of_stocks hits 0 i.e. having a negative number should not be possible.
I guess I could use a simple unless @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks > 0 at the end of the line, but I'm wondering if that will actually work without using a loop?
ruby-on-rails ruby
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
add a comment |
I have the following line of code which very simply decrements a Shareholders number of stocks (integer in the DB) when they sell them to someone else. This works well and as expected.
@selling_shareholder.update_attribute(:number_of_stocks, @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks -= @transaction.number_of_stocks)
Very simply what I'd like to do is have the decrement function stop when the number_of_stocks hits 0 i.e. having a negative number should not be possible.
I guess I could use a simple unless @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks > 0 at the end of the line, but I'm wondering if that will actually work without using a loop?
ruby-on-rails ruby
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
2
Riddle me this. How can one have atransactionwith anumber_of_stocksin excess of theirnumber_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validationvalidates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0}or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior
– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
1
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
1
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like+=or-=because they aren't thread-safe
– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
I have the following line of code which very simply decrements a Shareholders number of stocks (integer in the DB) when they sell them to someone else. This works well and as expected.
@selling_shareholder.update_attribute(:number_of_stocks, @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks -= @transaction.number_of_stocks)
Very simply what I'd like to do is have the decrement function stop when the number_of_stocks hits 0 i.e. having a negative number should not be possible.
I guess I could use a simple unless @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks > 0 at the end of the line, but I'm wondering if that will actually work without using a loop?
ruby-on-rails ruby
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
I have the following line of code which very simply decrements a Shareholders number of stocks (integer in the DB) when they sell them to someone else. This works well and as expected.
@selling_shareholder.update_attribute(:number_of_stocks, @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks -= @transaction.number_of_stocks)
Very simply what I'd like to do is have the decrement function stop when the number_of_stocks hits 0 i.e. having a negative number should not be possible.
I guess I could use a simple unless @selling_shareholder.number_of_stocks > 0 at the end of the line, but I'm wondering if that will actually work without using a loop?
ruby-on-rails ruby
ruby-on-rails ruby
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
asked Nov 14 '18 at 18:09
JP89JP89
10218
10218
2
Riddle me this. How can one have atransactionwith anumber_of_stocksin excess of theirnumber_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validationvalidates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0}or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior
– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
1
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
1
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like+=or-=because they aren't thread-safe
– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
2
Riddle me this. How can one have atransactionwith anumber_of_stocksin excess of theirnumber_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validationvalidates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0}or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior
– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
1
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
1
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like+=or-=because they aren't thread-safe
– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17
2
2
Riddle me this. How can one have a
transaction with a number_of_stocks in excess of their number_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validation validates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0} or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
Riddle me this. How can one have a
transaction with a number_of_stocks in excess of their number_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validation validates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0} or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
1
1
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
1
1
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like
+= or -= because they aren't thread-safe– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like
+= or -= because they aren't thread-safe– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I would suggest creating a method in your model called something like #decrement_stock that would handle that logic. You can set all kind of behaviors that should be expected, like raising exceptions. That approach follows the "tell don't ask" principle. It is also a simple unit of work performing a single task, making it easy to test with your favorite unit testing framework.
As engineersmnky suggested, simply adding validation on the model is also a good solution if you want the controller to handle errors.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53306379%2fhaving-a-decrement-function-stop-at-0-in-ruby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I would suggest creating a method in your model called something like #decrement_stock that would handle that logic. You can set all kind of behaviors that should be expected, like raising exceptions. That approach follows the "tell don't ask" principle. It is also a simple unit of work performing a single task, making it easy to test with your favorite unit testing framework.
As engineersmnky suggested, simply adding validation on the model is also a good solution if you want the controller to handle errors.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
I would suggest creating a method in your model called something like #decrement_stock that would handle that logic. You can set all kind of behaviors that should be expected, like raising exceptions. That approach follows the "tell don't ask" principle. It is also a simple unit of work performing a single task, making it easy to test with your favorite unit testing framework.
As engineersmnky suggested, simply adding validation on the model is also a good solution if you want the controller to handle errors.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
I would suggest creating a method in your model called something like #decrement_stock that would handle that logic. You can set all kind of behaviors that should be expected, like raising exceptions. That approach follows the "tell don't ask" principle. It is also a simple unit of work performing a single task, making it easy to test with your favorite unit testing framework.
As engineersmnky suggested, simply adding validation on the model is also a good solution if you want the controller to handle errors.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
I would suggest creating a method in your model called something like #decrement_stock that would handle that logic. You can set all kind of behaviors that should be expected, like raising exceptions. That approach follows the "tell don't ask" principle. It is also a simple unit of work performing a single task, making it easy to test with your favorite unit testing framework.
As engineersmnky suggested, simply adding validation on the model is also a good solution if you want the controller to handle errors.
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
answered Nov 14 '18 at 18:36
Sophie DézielSophie Déziel
404211
404211
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Will go with the validation and logic in the model solution - thanks!
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 18:41
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
Much better answer. So much so that I'm deleting mine!
– Gavin Miller
Nov 15 '18 at 15:46
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53306379%2fhaving-a-decrement-function-stop-at-0-in-ruby%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
Riddle me this. How can one have a
transactionwith anumber_of_stocksin excess of theirnumber_of_stocks? This seems like a simple validationvalidates :number_of_stocks, numericality: {greater_than_or_equal_to: 0}or if transaction is linked to the share holder than validate the number of stocks in the transaction prior– engineersmnky
Nov 14 '18 at 18:16
1
You are correct, I do not allow shareholders to sell more stocks than they own - and that is controlled in the view already, but what I was looking for here for some more assurance/safety on the back end - which now I've added via your model validation suggestion - thanks! :)
– JP89
Nov 14 '18 at 19:59
1
On a side note, try to avoid using operators like
+=or-=because they aren't thread-safe– Eric Norcross
Nov 14 '18 at 20:18
Thanks, makes sense!
– JP89
Nov 15 '18 at 19:17