8b13daad95
For the HashAlignment rule, we're using the default `key` style (keys are aligned and values aren't) instead of the `table` style (both keys and values are aligned) because, even if we used both in the application, we used the `key` style a lot more. Furthermore, the `table` style looks strange in places where there are both very long and very short keys and sometimes we weren't even consistent with the `table` style, aligning some keys without aligning other keys. Ideally we could align hashes to "either key or table", so developers can decide whether keeping the symmetry of the code is worth it in a case-per-case basis, but Rubocop doesn't allow this option.
27 lines
765 B
Ruby
27 lines
765 B
Ruby
module Relationable
|
|
extend ActiveSupport::Concern
|
|
|
|
included do
|
|
has_many :related_contents,
|
|
as: :parent_relationable,
|
|
inverse_of: :parent_relationable,
|
|
dependent: :destroy
|
|
end
|
|
|
|
def find_related_content(relationable)
|
|
RelatedContent.find_by(parent_relationable: self, child_relationable: relationable)
|
|
end
|
|
|
|
def relationed_contents
|
|
if MachineLearning.enabled? && Setting["machine_learning.related_content"].present?
|
|
related_content = related_contents.not_hidden.order(machine_learning_score: :desc)
|
|
else
|
|
related_content = related_contents.not_hidden.from_users
|
|
end
|
|
|
|
related_content.map(&:child_relationable).reject do |related|
|
|
related.respond_to?(:retired?) && related.retired?
|
|
end
|
|
end
|
|
end
|