Using model methods without an object for that model

Hi, I'm implementing an API to create records for one type of object in
batches. I have model called kpivalues but the standard rest rules
mostly deal with acting on single records. So I've created an api where
using kpivalues with post, update or delete will execute create, update
or delete on a group of records defined in json as part of the body
request. I know that is no restful, I checked around and that was
pointed as a valid approach. I'm not obsessed with rest and anyway that
is not the doubt I have, though might be related.

In my controller api I receive the json and can iterate through the set
of entries in the json and create, update or delete for each kpivalue.

There is some checks to do before proceeding with the real action on the
object and it is all in the controller which makes is a bit too crowded.
I know I should move that to the model, but those actions I do are
auxiliary tasks like checking if the json parsing fails, or checking if
some element in the json for an entry is valid to proceed, and so on.

Where would that code belong? Should I anyway move it to the model and
use it like Kpivalue::parseEntries for example? Should I use a module
and use it from the controller (I'm not sure what difference would that
make,
I guess more testability but in the end it would be included in the
controller anyway)?

Any good hints?

Thanks.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Ha, I think this one was better on the ruby on rails space of the forum.
Sorry for that.

Any comments on this issue? I'm about to move the code I have in the
controller to a separate module but since that will be included in the
controller I'm not sure what are the benefits.

Cheers.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

The basic RoR practice is to have 'thin' controllers. So the controller
would, perhaps, validate / transform params[] then call something to do the
work and then quit

This sort of thing should be testable with unit tests. Which brings us back
to thin controllers. If it results in a model or a class is not a major
issue but being able to test things like this with unit tests as opposed to
functional tests is.

Also your first post is rambling on about something that has nothing to do
with the real point of your post which is no one responded to you. Let
me summarise what you really asked.

Q: "I have a lot of code in my controller because that is where it is
called. What are the benefits of moving this out into a sperate module /
model / class?"

···

A: "Ease of testing"

Peter Hickman wrote in post #1086921:

Q: "I have a lot of code in my controller because that is where it is
called. What are the benefits of moving this out into a sperate module /
model / class?"

A: "Ease of testing"

Yeah Thanks Peter. Agree! Too much text on the original question. Sorry
for that.

I try to keep my controllers thin and its getting better everyday.

Cheers.

···

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.