Please send this to the rails group: http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 12:32 AM, John Chow <[email protected]> wrote: > So I was trying to resolve an issue in my application where I couldn't do > proper validation when creating associated models. After doing a Google > search, I finally found the solution: :inverted_of. > > So it seems to me this is a totally awesome option, one that has both > performance as well as logical benefits. I'm probably not seeing the > drawbacks, but it seems to me that it should be used as much as possible. > Does anybody have perspective why this isn't enabled by default (or at > least talked about more in the Rails community)? > > Sample Code: > > class Car < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :tires > end > > class Tire < ActiveRecord::Base > belongs_to :car > validates :car, presence: true > end > > c = Car.new > c.tires.build #now I have a Tire object ready to save... > c.save! # this will explode, saying that car doesn't exist for the tire! > Although this will work with the :inverse_of option: > > class Car < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :tires, inverse_of :car > end > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "rspec" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rspec/-/Mn9KatDxNvIJ. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rspec" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
