dewetblomerus
I have a resource that belongs_to a User.
When I create one with my code_interface I pass in a user_id.
I want to start creating code interfaces for querying the resources belonging to that user, I can again pass in user_id.
However, when I look at the code generated by ash_phoenix.gen.live I see this beauty:
AshPhoenix.Form.for_create(Red.Api.Attempt, :create,
api: Red.Api,
as: "attempt",
actor: socket.assigns.current_user
)
Instead of passing in the user_id, I just pass in the user as an actor.
What is the convention here? (Please don’t tell me to do whatever I feel like, I feel like learning the conventional/idiomatic Ash way of doing this).
If the convention is to pass in an actor in the code interface. Please share a link to an example if possible.
Trending in Questions
I having some trouble figuring out if I have set myself too strict of standards for my production server. Currently I can handle 75% of r...
New
Hello,
I know there is an approach for handling lists that allows for optimized traversal, but I can’t recall the specific method (somet...
New
Documentation
While reading the Scoped Routes section, I noticed that the documentation currently refers to a problem without explainin...
New
Hi everyone,
I am toying with the idea of building a “match maker” for giving personal help to people that wants to start coding.
I sta...
New
So my question is quite simple and i have found no conclusive answer on forum, google or AI.
Should we use :erlang.float for Integer to ...
New
I recently noticed that Elixir’s Logger defaults its primary log level to :debug when no :logger, :level application configuration is pre...
New
I’m new to elixir and just tried to install the elixirLS extension for VScode(ium) and it is throwing some errors that I would like help ...
New
Other Trending Topics
Edit: 2026 May 15 - This post is archived.
Mob is alive!!
Main docs: mob v0.7.11 — Documentation
A bit of explanation for the slightly c...
New
Hey, I’m Jesse and I’m the main contributor behind Dexter, a full-featured, lightning-fast Elixir LSP optimized for large codebases. It s...
New
I am happy to introduce the very α version of the new programming language compiled to BEAM.
Welcome Cure.
It has literally three kille...
New
Hobbes is a low-level distributed database for the Elixir programming language.
Hobbes provides a simple, safe, and scalable storage lay...
New
Hi everyone!
The first release candidate for the Expert language server project is now available!
We’ve published a press release detai...
New
A little off-topic, but I feel like people here have a good head on their shoulders.
I used to be quite good at making software. Was luc...
New
Categories:
Sub Categories:
Forums
Popular Tags
- #ecto
- #liveview
- #troubleshooting
- #learning-elixir
- #library
- #deployment
- #erlang
- #testing
- #genserver
- #mix
- #absinthe
- #remote-other
- #otp
- #plug
- #how-to-question
- #macros
- #postgres
- #elixirconf
- #channels
- #exunit
- #discussion
- #code-sync
- #podcasts
- #javascript
- #onsite
- #dialyzer
- #docker
- #authentication
- #umbrella
- #full-time-contract
- #podcasts-by-brainlid
- #ai
- #ecto-query
- #elixirconf-us
- #blog-post
- #elixir-ls
- #phoenix_html
- #iex
- #graphql
- #genstage
- #websockets
- #supervisor
- #advent-of-code
- #distillery
- #processes
- #elixirconf-eu
- #api
- #forms
- #metaprogramming
- #hex











Showing Posts 1 to 8- Show Best Posts
- Show All (oldest first)
- Show All (newest first)
dewetblomerus
I have not set up any policies or looked at those, if that or something entirely different is the conventional way of scoping a query to a specific user, I can go down that road too.
zachdaniel
The general pattern is to first ask yourself what kind of action you are writing. If you are writing the sort of action that is “contextual to the actor”, i.e. “create_my_thing”. vs “create_thing_for_user”. They are subtly different, and in many cases you may have both. I.e some admin version of an action that allows supplying any user.
Generally speaking, your best bet is to start by preferring to use the actor, and if later you determine that you want someone to be able to take that action “on behalf of” another user, you can either add another version of the action, or modify the internals of the action to expect an actor or a supplied user_id (for example).
All code interface functions accept an
actoroption, i.eYourResource.create!(...., actor: actor).So to sum up, prefer to write “actor-specific” actions (as you described), as they are easier to reason about.
dewetblomerus
That is exactly what I needed
Thank you, Zack.
dewetblomerus
Now that I know what I’m trying to do, I still can’t figure out how. There is only one example in the documentation, and it does not how how to make use of the built-in options.
Here is the resource:
What I was able to make work
It’s not what I want because I had to make the
belongs_toattribute_writeable?: truewhich I don’t need at this point (not yet assigning cards to someone else).But it fails when
I try to remove the
attribute_writable?: trueand pass theactoroption,Here is the error:
How do I fix this?
zachdaniel
right, so now what you need to do is use the current user in the action to map it to the
userrelationship in some way.The long way:
The built in way:
dewetblomerus
Badabing Badaboom
This worked:
I was able to remove the
attribute_writable?: truefrom the relationship.And now this works:
zachdaniel
Ah, you likely want this to be only in a specific action, i.e
If it is in global changes, it will happen on all create and update actions.
dewetblomerus
Oh gotcha! Thanks for clarifying. I did that and it works.
Here’s my whole Resource now, just in case someone else is wanting a complete example:
I can’t guarantee that this file will keep living here, but if someone wants to see the up-to-date changes: red/lib/red/practice/resources/card.ex at main · dewetblomerus/red · GitHub