Ufdjrw

I would like a clean piece of code and I think this feels clunky.

Is there a better way to do this?

User.try(:profile).try(:settings).try(:card).try(:options)

If I eliminate the try methods, I get a nil method error.

Is there another piece of code that does something like:

User.try(:profile,:settings, :card, :options)

From ruby 2.3.0 you can use &. method instead of try:

User&.profile&.settings&.card&.options

But you should avoid things like this.

When you send messages to objects that might return nil or when the object doesn't respond to that message, that's a problem you should solve on its own. Using try only exacerbates the problem, in the same way that nil-checking does. Write consistent interfaces that behave consistently.

If you are using a Ruby version greater than 2.3, you can use the safe operator instead. For example,

User.profile&.settings&.card&.options

Isn't that neat?

Just for fun

Roll your own:

# concerns/deep_try.rb

module DeepTry
 def deep_try(*methods)
 methods.reduce(self) receiver.try(method) 
 end
end

# user.rb (or anywhere else you want it)
extend DeepTry

That would let you safely call the following:

User.deep_try(:profile, :settings, :card, :options)

You could also use on an instance level:

@user.extend(DeepTry).deep_try(:profile, :settings, :card, :options)

I know this is out in left field, but you know, diversity in thinking.

I have created the (very tiny) insouciant gem that allows code to be executed with worrying about errors. Using this gem the code would look like:

insouciant(nil) User.profile.settings.card.options 

with the slight added "benefit" of catching all standard errors, not just nil method errors. The nil value is returned on an error. You can replaced it with some other value if that makes more sense in your application.

Omitting the parameter entirely will return the error message as a string.