use kaminari/will_paginate about filterer

[ramontayag]

Yes this is a good idea. I want to use this gem with https://github.com/davidcelis/api-pagination but it looks like it won't be compatible.

[ajb]

Thanks for the input. As for your use case, you should be able to use the
.chain method:

filterer/lib/filterer/base.rb

Line 52 in 9e19f44

def chain(params = {}, opts = {})

On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 12:35 AM, Ramon Tayag [email protected]
wrote:

Yes this is a good idea. I want to use this gem with
https://github.com/davidcelis/api-pagination but it looks like it won't
be compatible.

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

Adam Becker
510.928.9111
@AdamJacobBecker

[olliebennett]

Can the chain method be used to integrate with kaminari?

I also back this feature request as the filterer gem - while fantastic for managing filters - is let down by its pagination logic (specifically the view helper).

If it's not possible to integrate kaminari (or will-paginate), I could attempt to improve the pagination logic within this gem.

[olliebennett]

I believe the following is the appropriate way to integrate kaminari:

# Without Kaminari:
@filterer = PersonFilterer.new(params)
# With Kaminari:
@filterer = PersonFilterer.chain(params).page(params[:page]).per(100)

And the respective change in the view:

# Without Kaminari:
@filterer.results.each do |person|
# With Kaminari:
@filterer.each do |person|

This implementation appears to ignore the sort configuration in the filterer, however. Is that the reason this issue remains open?

[ajb]

Hey @olliebennett,

Yes, that workaround will work for now. The reason this issue is open is that I'm planning to remove the current pagination methods/views and make usage of kaminari/will_paginate the primary method for pagination.

[olliebennett]

Great - thanks for the response. Should the 'sort' options be obeyed when using Kaminari in the above manner? In my trials the sort (and direction) params are ignored. I believe this is due to the following code in base.rb:

def find_results
  @results = opts.delete(:starting_query) || starting_query
  add_params_to_query
  return if @opts[:chainable]
  order_results

Would it be a problem to move order_results above the chainable check? Perhaps (in order to preserve backwards compatibility) we could have a new chain_with_ordering method or pass a new :include_ordering option?

If there are no obvious pitfalls with this that you can see, I can attempt to provide a PR for this. Can continue discussion in a separate issue if you prefer? Thanks again

[ajb]

I believe this is due to the following code in base.rb:

Yeah, tbh I don't really remember why the code works that way. I'm 👍 on adding an include_ordering option until the next major release.

[ajb]

This will be released in 1.0.0.

[ramontayag]

Great - thanks!

[ajb]

Hi all,

I just pushed 1.0.0.beta.1 to Rubygems. If you have a chance to take a look, maybe read the documentation, and provide some feedback, it would be super helpful!