Project

General

Profile

Feature #15829

Object#then_if(condition){}

Added by foonlyboy (Eike Dierks) 2 months ago. Updated 2 months ago.

Status:
Open
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
-
Target version:
-
[ruby-core:92559]

Description

I'd like to propose some sugar to Object#then

There should be Object#then_if(condition, &block)

The block should only be applied when the condition is true,
otherwise the object should be returned without applying the block.

Rationale:

I frequently use Object#then with Rails to extend queries like this:

foo.then {|query|
  if(condition)
   query.where(zip:zap)
  else
   query
  end
}

by using the proposed Object#then_if the example could be simplified to:

foo.then_if(condition) {|query|
   query.where(zip:zap)
}

I believe that this also applies to a lot of other use cases,
i.e. only applying some transformation if some condition is true,
but otherwise leaving the result untouched.

History

Updated by foonlyboy (Eike Dierks) 2 months ago

class Object
  def then_if(condition, &block)
    if condition
      self.then(&block)
    else
      self
    end
  end
end

Updated by foonlyboy (Eike Dierks) 2 months ago

A (somehow contrived) example:

[1,2,3,4,5].map{|n| n.then_if(n.even?){'even'}}
=> [1, "even", 3, "even", 5]

Updated by foonlyboy (Eike Dierks) 2 months ago

A more complex example:

scope :blacklisted_at, -> (seller=nil, flag=true) {
  then_if(! flag.nil?) {
    joins(:disk_seller_maps)
      .then_if(seller) {|q|
      q.where(disk_seller_map:{seller_id:seller})
    }
      .then_if(! flag) {|q|
      all.where.not(id: q)
    }
  }
}

Not really sure if this does what I mean,
but it looks a lot more concise now.

Before that all that cases would have expanded to 6 cases,
but now it looks a lot more concise.

  • then_if(! flag.nil?) shields from flag.nil?
  • then_if(seller) only applies if a seller was given
  • then_if(! flag) negates the query

This brings the code down from 2x3=6 variants,
to only two code blocks (the second one being trivial in this case)

Updated by nobu (Nobuyoshi Nakada) 2 months ago

  • Description updated (diff)

As it seems useful only when condition doesn't use the parameter query, it is questionable to me if it is generic enough to be a language feature.

Updated by sawa (Tsuyoshi Sawada) 2 months ago

I have exactly the same concern as nobu. And that problem stems from the fact that, in this proposal, the condition is given as an argument of the method, which means that it has to be evaluated independently of the return value that appears in the middle of the method chain.

That should take us back to #15557, where the condition is proposed to be given as a block (or a proc, following a suggestion by nobu).

Also available in: Atom PDF