db/seeds.rb: Give restroom entries an edit_id

[DeeDeeG]

Context

• Fixes #541
• This issue was that all the data in development environment were grouped together (as if they were serial edits of the same original restroom), and so only one restroom entry was being displayed.

Summary of Changes

In db/seeds.rb:

• For each entry being generated from the .CSV file, copy the generated id value to also be the edit-id value.
  • This ends up giving a matching id and edit_id to every entry.

[Edited the above: This no-longer count up the edit_id number from 1 by iterating the loop; It now reads the id value of the restroom entry, and copies that as the (matching) edit_id value.]

Checklist

• [ ] Tested Mobile Responsiveness
• [ ] Added Unit Tests
• [x] CI Passes
• [ ] Deploys to Heroku on test Correctly (Maintainers will handle)
• [ ] Added Documentation (Service and Code when required)

Screenshots

Before

After

[mi-wood]

I think it might be better to do something similar to how the application creates restrooms. So:

restroom = Restroom.create(...)
restroom.update(edit_id: restroom.id)

That way it is tied to the actual id and not the index of the for loop.

[DeeDeeG]

Thanks for the code suggestion, looks good.

I got kind of confused trying to add that in, because typing the wrong name (restroom vs Restroom) did completely different things. For clarity, would you mind if I did this:

current_restroom = Restroom.create(...)
current_restroom.update(edit_id: current_restroom.id)

Or something similar?

(Edit to add: I admit I'm not much of a programmer, so this may not be a problem to folks who program more often. Now that I "get" that lowercase restroom is just a temporary "object," and its name doesn't matter, and Restroom is a... "function" (?) defined for the project, I can see why they behave differently. So it may not be necessary to use names that are more distinct at a glance. But it seems really easy to typo these, even for more-experienced programmers. Since I don't mess with the code a lot, I defer to folks who do.)

(Edit 2: Regardless of what name we use for the local/temporary restroom object, I can confirm the code as you posted it works 100%.)

[mi-wood]

So, Restroom is a class name.

Restroom.create is a class method. This is a method is not associated with a single restroom, hence it is used for create (the restroom doesn't exist yet). It returns an instance of Restroom.

restroom.update is an instance method. It acts upon a restroom. In this case, update is acting upon the existing restroom to get its id and update the edit_id.

class_name = ClassName.new() is a pretty common convention. That being said, I'm not too particular about what it's called.

[DeeDeeG]

I went with just lowercase restroom for the instance name, because, as you say, it is a common pattern in Ruby, and people editing this file are likely to be comfortable with common Ruby patterns.

Going with the flow is fine here IMO.

(This can be squash-and-merged for neatness' sake in develop/master.)

[DeeDeeG]

I'm going to merge this soon if that's okay/no objections. (Definitely want to squash&merge though.)