Panda Assignment submission.

[codeblahblah]

Created a panda.rb file in the Models directory.

[jwo]

a method that ends in "?" should return a true/false

[jwo]

Good first step at a Panda submission -- let me know if you have any questions on it, and be sure to ping me "@jwo" when you push new code for this pull request.

[codeblahblah]

Gotcha.
Will re-attempt it.
How does pinging on Github work?

On 4 February 2014 17:19, Jesse Wolgamott notifications@github.com wrote:

Good first step at a Panda submission -- let me know if you have any
questions on it, and be sure to ping me "@jwohttps://github.com/jwo"
when you push new code for this pull request.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/20#issuecomment-34069375
.

"When you are tired of being yourself then you can be ordinary." - dudu

[jwo]

You should type “@jwo"

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 at 10:21 AM, drammopo wrote:

Gotcha.
Will re-attempt it.
How does pinging on Github work?

On 4 February 2014 17:19, Jesse Wolgamott <notifications@github.com (mailto:notifications@github.com)> wrote:

Good first step at a Panda submission -- let me know if you have any
questions on it, and be sure to ping me "@jwohttps://github.com/jwo"
when you push new code for this pull request.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/20#issuecomment-34069375
.

"When you are tired of being yourself then you can be ordinary." - dudu

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub (#20 (comment)).

[codeblahblah]

Corrections made.

[jwo]

Looks good. The only thing missing is:

I should be able to pass in a hash of color, make, model, and year to the class to update its variables

So, I should be able to:

auto=Automobile.new(x,y,z)auto.update(a,b,c)

[codeblahblah]

Added update method to the class.

[jwo]

what does purs auto.model output? Is it what you expect?

[codeblahblah]

puts auto.model returns nil.
Not what I expected.
Changed code to @model ||= new_args[:model]
Alternatively could have used @model = new_args[:model] unless @model.
Which is 'better' syntax?

[jwo]

@model ||= new_args[:model] is dependent on the state of @model
@model = new_args[:model] unless @model will never override @model

What you want to do is overwrite, if the arg is there, otherwise you leave it. This is the most common form of that expression

@model=new_args[:model]ifnew_args[:model]

You could also use fetch with a default to achieve a cleaner, but possibly harder to understand look:

@model=new_args.fetch(:model,@model)

[codeblahblah]

For now I'll use:

@model=new_args[:model]ifnew_args[:model]

The correction has been made.

[jwo]

why use "||=" ?

[codeblahblah]

Well spotted.
Fixed.
Thanks.

[jwo]

Awesome 🎉 !

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Automobiles are not counted when created? All other types are. Why is that?

[jwo]

Oh, should have caught that. Call "super" in your subclass, and it'll call the initialize in your superclass. So when auto is initialized, if you call super, it will call initialize of Vehicle as well.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:39 AM, drammopo notifications@github.com
wrote:

@jwo Automobiles are not counted when created? All other types are. Why is that?

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

[codeblahblah]

I had that in my original code and but got:
eagle.rb:3:in `initialize': wrong number of arguments (1 for 0) (ArgumentError)

See snippet below

definitialize(args)@color=args[:color]@make=args[:make]@model=args[:model]@year=args[:year]superend

[jwo]

Ahh try 

super()

That's tell ruby to only call it with 0 arguments.

On Thu, Feb 6, 2014 at 11:55 AM, drammopo notifications@github.com
wrote:

I had that in my original code and but got:
eagle.rb:3:in `initialize': wrong number of arguments (1 for 0) (ArgumentError)
See snippet below

definitialize(args)@color=args[:color]@make=args[:make]@model=args[:model]@year=args[:year]superend

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

[codeblahblah]

Working now.
Thanks.

[jwo]

It would seem that the following are not needed

Vehicle.register(self)Automobile.build_car(args)

And you don't need both a build and a build_car method, right?

[jwo]

To clarify, this is what I'm after:

classAutomobiledefinitialize(args)@color=args[:color]@make=args[:make]@model=args[:model]@year=args[:year]Vehicle.register(self)Automobile.build_car(args)super()enddefself.build(args)auto=Automobile.build(args)@@vehicles << autoautoendenddescribeAutomobiledoit"records the auto when I build it"doauto=Automobile.buildexpect(Automobile.all_autos).toinclude?(auto)endend

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Please expand on the Autobile.all_autos method.
Is it similar to the Vehicle.count in the sense that each Auto created will be sent to a @@atuos variable?
In which case you are checking that Array via the include?(auto) statement

Also can you call self.build on itself as per your example above?

defself.build(args)auto=Automobile.build(args)@@vehicles << autoautoend

[jwo]

Yes it's similar. 

 Also can you call self.build on itself as per your example above?

Yes, why do you think you couldn't?

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 1:37 PM, drammopo notifications@github.com wrote:

@jwo Please expand on the Autobile.all_autos method.
Is it similar to the Vehicle.count in the sense that each Auto created will be sent to a @@atuos variable?
In which case you are checking that Array via the include?(auto) statement
Also can you call self.build on itself as per your example above?

defself.build(args)auto=Automobile.build(args)@@vehicles << autoautoend

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Hmmmm. I see the error in my thinking.
As per the code below, there's no need for a #register as we do so via @@vehicles << auto
I'm still stuck on #build. Does it take the current instance and send it forward? i.e the self that was created during the Automobile.new?
In which case you cannot call Automobile.build before Automobile.new? Which kinda makes sense in the real world...

classAutomobiledefinitialize(args)@color=args[:color]@make=args[:make]@model=args[:model]@year=args[:year]Automobile.build(args)super()enddefself.build(args)auto=Automobile.build(args)@@vehicles << autoautoendenddescribeAutomobiledoit"records the auto when I build it"doauto=Automobile.buildexpect(Automobile.all_autos).toinclude?(auto)endend

[jwo]

Here is what I want in this discussion. You don't register when you call Automobile.new

classAutomobiledefinitialize(args)@color=args[:color]@make=args[:make]@model=args[:model]@year=args[:year]super()end

You register if someone calls Automobile.build

That makes Automobile.build your API endpoint, and leaves Automobile.new for your internal stuff.

In the same way, in Rails, you can call User.create if you'd like to, which would "register" (save to the database) the user being created.

[codeblahblah]

@jwo
Gotcha.
The difference comes in that you can call User.count immediately after User.create because a save to the database has occurred.
In our case you'd have to:
Automobile.new(model: 'Mustang', color: 'Red', make: 'Ford', year: 2007) then Automobile.build because there's no middle-man for storage.

The latest code is up.
Please have a look at automobile_spec.rb as it fails on account of it expecting arguments whereas you examples above do not.

[jwo]

here's what I'd love to see

Automobile.count=>0Automobile.build(model: 'Mustang',color: 'Red',make: 'Ford',year: 2007)Automobile.count=>1

[codeblahblah]

@jwo
Aside from the obvious, how is Automobile.build(model: 'Mustang', color: 'Red', make: 'Ford', year: 2007) different from Automobile.new(model: 'Mustang', color: 'Red', make: 'Ford', year: 2007)

[jwo]

Well, this is an exercise in showing the difference between class methods and initialization methods. 

In a production system, you don't want an initializer to have side effects. You should be able to create objects without effects. Then, you can call different methods to persist or otherwise affect them.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:41 PM, drammopo notifications@github.com wrote:

@jwo

Aside from the obvious, how is Automobile.build(model: 'Mustang', color: 'Red', make: 'Ford', year: 2007) different from Automobile.new(model: 'Mustang', color: 'Red', make: 'Ford', year: 2007)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

[codeblahblah]

@jwo
Made this change and it works now

defself.build(args)auto=Automobile.new(args)@@vehicles << auto@@auto << autoautoend

[jwo]

awesome!

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:47 PM, drammopo notifications@github.com wrote:

@jwo
Made this change and it works now

defself.build(args)auto=Automobile.new(args)@@vehicles << auto@@auto << autoautoend

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#20 (comment)

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Used the Rails operation(s) all the time without understanding what was going on under the hood. Thanks for this!

[jwo]

Used the Rails operation(s) all the time without understanding what was going on under the hood. Thanks for this!

That is literally the coolest, best compliment you can give me for this course 🎉 😄

Do you approve for me to use it in a testimonial?

[codeblahblah]

Definitely.
Provided I can see where it's being posted first.

Midnight all ready. Gotta catch some Zzzz.
Cheers

[codeblahblah]

@jwo I made a pun related to cars without realising.
I've created my first test suite.
What do you think?

[jwo]

I would rather you use "let" instead of @auto.

Instead of

before:eachdo@auto=Automobile.new(model: 'Mustang',color: 'Red',make: 'Ford',year: 2007)end

I would

let(:auto){Automobile.new(model: 'Mustang',color: 'Red',make: 'Ford',year: 2007)}

Then later,

auto.shouldbe_an_instance_ofAutomobile

[jwo]

Test suite looks most excellent!

I think you have this down (and also the longest pull request ever :) )

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Awesome!
Had my first Ah-ha moment during the exercise which lead me to http://betterspecs.org/
Will make the changes as suggested.

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Am I testing the Vehicle#search correctly?

[jwo]

Can you point me to where you are testing it?

[codeblahblah]

@jwo /spec/vehicle_spec.rb

[jwo]

Going to say no, vehicle_spec looks extremely bare.

[codeblahblah]

@jwo Apologies.
Had a commit issue.
Please have a look now.

[jwo]

This seems like a fine search. It doesn't cover all functionality though.

I might like it if it were the following, where you are more assertive about the results.

Vehicle.search(color: "blue",model: "honda").shouldeq([auto])