How to use unscoped on associated relations in Rails3?

Question

I have a default scope on products due to information security constraints.

class Product < ActiveRecord::Base
  has_many :photos

  default_scope where('visible = 1')
end

In my associated Photo model, however, I also have to find products that should not be visible.

class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to :product
end

my_photo.product

In other cases, I can use unscoped in order to bypass the default_scope, e.g. in Product.unscoped.find_by_title('abc'). However:

How to remove the scope when using associations of a record?

my_photo.unscoped.product does not make sense as my_photo does not have a method called unscoped. Neither does my_photo.product.unscoped make sense as my_photo.product may already be nil.

Wough. You would "cast" the objects around instead of using a boolean attribute? — crispy, Jan 21 '11 at 12:39
I definitely believe that if you need a default_scope, it's better to use sti with dedicated objects. — apneadiving, Jan 21 '11 at 17:53
I have to "wough!" again. First, I already use STI for my model, having SimpleProduct, ConfigurableProduct < Product. So then I would have VisibleSimpleProduct, SimpleProduct, VisibleConfigurableProduct, ConfigurableProduct, and Product? Second, I use polymorphic associations on them, which is already painful. In my comments table, they are saved as commentable_type = ConfigurableProduct and tried to retrieved as Product. When trying to use ActiveRecord#becomes, all runtime product instances were broken. STI is the biggest weakness of Ruby/Rails. How do I 'cast' objects at runtime with Ruby? — crispy, Jan 22 '11 at 15:02
Besides (though not part of this question), we are using around_filter in all relevant Controllers with Product.scoping { FinancialProduct.scoping { InsureanceProduct.scoping { yield }}}. In that way, we do not need a default_scope. — crispy, Aug 24 '11 at 12:21
As of [Rails 4.1](https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/94924dc32baf78f13e289172534c2e71c9c8cade) you can do `belongs_to :product, ->{ unscope(where: :visible) }` — exbinary, Apr 20 '15 at 05:13

crispy · Accepted Answer · 2011-01-27T09:28:44.920

Oh. I fooled myself. Thought the following would not work... but it does:

Product.unscoped do
  my_photo.product
end

Notice that you have to call unscoped on the model with the default_scope that should be bypassed.

Also, inheritance has to be respected. If you have class InsuranceProduct < Productand class FinancialProduct < Product and a default_scope in Product, all of the following two combinations will work:

InsuranceProduct.unscoped do
  my_record.insurance_products
end

FinancialProduct.unscoped do
  my_record.financial_products
end

Product.unscoped do
  my_record.products
end

However, the following will not work although the scope is defined in Product:

Product.unscoped do
  my_record.financial_products
end

I guess that's another quirk of STI in Ruby / Rails.

There's a a gotcha with this solution though: the query has to be executed inside the block, so one has to make sure `#all` or `#to_a` are called on the `has_many` relation. See here for details: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/5591 — Damir Zekić, May 07 '13 at 16:00

score 59 · Answer 2 · answered Jun 13 '12 at 15:43

59

Another option is to override the getter method and unscope super:

class Photo < ActiveRecord::Base
  belongs_to :product

  def product
    Product.unscoped{ super }
  end
end

I ran into the same situation where I had one associated model that needed to be unscoped, but in almost every other case it needed the default scope. This should save you the extra calls to unscoped if you are using the assocation getter in more than one place.

answered Jun 13 '12 at 15:43

johnmcaliley

11,015
2
42
47

5

Thanks! Feels pretty hacky though... Wish there was a way to write `belongs_to :product, :unscoped => true` which would prevent us from having to override the method in every model. – Augustin Riedinger Sep 23 '13 at 10:56
There is such a thing in Rails 3. It's broken in Rails 4: https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/10643 – Tim Nov 14 '13 at 21:57
Great! Is there a way to call `product.photos.unscoped` if photos were scoped by default? – Artem Kalinchuk Jan 09 '14 at 23:48
A fix is pending for Rails 4: https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/d25321b35328742ab97c08e7b1ed3cadeca5739b – GuyPaddock Oct 06 '15 at 16:11
Also take note that this produces an extra database query even if using Photo.includes(:product). – tommyalvarez Jan 09 '18 at 16:19

markets · Answer 3 · 2014-07-31T00:29:11.457

32

I'm probably a bit late to the party, but some time ago I found myself in the same situation and I wrote a gem to do this easily: unscoped_associations.

Usage:

belongs_to :user, unscoped: true

Support for:

belongs_to
has_one
has_many

Polymorphic associations are also supported.

edited Jul 31 '14 at 00:29

answered Nov 25 '13 at 19:17

markets

6,709
1
38
48

1

Thanks @markets, your gem saves me an odd case where default_scope cannot be excluded. – kasperite Mar 04 '14 at 22:48
7

I'm very suprised this requires a gem! This should be a rails default feature! – Augustin Riedinger May 19 '14 at 15:22
1

Worked great for me in the specific case where I used .includes to pull in an association. – Michael Paladino Nov 25 '14 at 03:48
1

The most elegant solution in my opinion! – Myxtic May 21 '17 at 17:00
Warning this gem is is now archived on GitHub and hasn't been updated in 5 years. – Justin Tanner May 13 '22 at 19:15

score 22 · Answer 4 · answered Oct 29 '16 at 17:32

22

If you need for a specific association to always be unscoped, you can unscope it when defining the association:

belongs_to :product, -> { unscope(where: :visible) }

For some reason, the specific where key wasn't loading correctly for me, so I just unscoped the entire where, which is another option that happens to work out in my case:

belongs_to :product, -> { unscope(:where) }

The other answers are worth looking at too, but this is another option for Rails 4.1+.

answered Oct 29 '16 at 17:32

Chris Peters

17,918
6
49
65

9

be very careful about using belongs_to :product, -> { unscope(:where) } it removes the whole scope, so if you have something.product it will just return the first product in the db. kills the where id =... – Cremz Nov 22 '18 at 15:16

score 7 · Answer 5 · answered May 05 '16 at 14:08

7

In Rails 4 you can use the association with an explicit unscope of the undesirable filter i.e. my_photo.product.unscope(where: :visible)

answered May 05 '16 at 14:08

Kamran

247
4
6

score 1 · Answer 6 · answered Apr 24 '12 at 09:21

It's not on the main topic but on your problem with ActiveRecord#becomes: We (hopefully) fixed it with an initializer

 class ActiveRecord::Base

   def becomes_with_association_cache(klass)
     became = becomes_without_association_cache(klass)
     became.instance_variable_set("@association_cache", @association_cache)
     became
   end
   alias_method_chain :becomes, :association_cache

 end

https://gist.github.com/2478161

score 0 · Answer 7 · edited Jun 20 '20 at 09:12

0

New answer

This question should help you figure out how to bypass the default where clause for your association.

It's worth repeating though that if you're regularly having to avoid a scope then it probably should be a default. Create a visible non-default scope and use that explicitly in your associations.

edited Jun 20 '20 at 09:12

Community

1
1

answered Jan 21 '11 at 11:56

noodl

17,143
3
57
55

Sorry. I was in a hurry and completely messed up my example. It was only meant for illustrating the use case and has almost nothing to do with my real implementation. Please read my question again. – crispy Jan 21 '11 at 12:30
Ok, that's better. I suspect this is a non-issue though; `my_photo.product` shouldn't invoke the default_scope. – noodl Jan 21 '11 at 12:37

How to use unscoped on associated relations in Rails3?

7 Answers7

New answer

Linked