Refactoring if statement based on a hash key

Question

I have to call Article.to_draft/to_archive/publish method depending on the presence of the corresponding key in the params hash.

I do, however, have no idea to implement it properly.

def update_state
 method = if params[:draft].present?
 :to_draft
 elsif params[:archived].present?
 :to_archive
 else
 :publish
 end
 @article.send method
end

The code works, but the number of possible states of an article will probably grow in the future.

I would like to have a hash like this:

{ draft: :to_draft, archived: :to_archive, default: :publish }

and let #update_state decide what should be called, based on the params hash.

Answer 1

I suggest using find

ARTICLE_ACTIONS = { :draft => :to_draft,
 :archived => :to_archive,
 :default => :publish 
 }
def update_state
 state = [:draft, :archived, :default]
 .find {|state| params[state].present?}
 @article.send ARTICLE_ACTIONS[state]
end

• just so: Sorry, I probably didn't explain it well. params is a hash provided by rails controller. it does NOT contain the names of the corresponding methods (:draft => :to_draft etc.). I have to call what's needed manually
• just so: Browser sends an HTTP request, with one of the possible states (draft, archived). Based on this, I have to call one of the @article methods: @article.to_draft if params contains 'draft' or @articleto_archive if params contains archived or @article.publish if none are provided
• Caridorc: @justso you may build the hash yourself, answer updated

Answer 2

I know the question is already but I think it can be simplified further by using routes. Like

post "article/:state", to: "articles#update_state"

and then you can simply call

["draft", "archived", "default"].includes?(params[:state]) && @article.send(params[:state]) 

• just so: It's an security vulnerability
• SuperBiasedMan: A question having an accepted answer isn't a problem, more reviews are always welcome when they have new suggestions like this.
• usmanali: @justso I think it can be bypassed, I have edited my answer though.