> This afterthought to this ancient but still relevant post
> http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/b509a2fe2b62ac5
I wish you'd also warned how annoying that thread was. It just ruined
my breakfast, and I only got half-way through.
Anyway, I like the functionality. I'd suggest that the instance be
made available to the code providing the defaults. The way you show it
implemented, that would mean making it an argument to #defaults.
def initialize_with_defaults(attributes=nil,&block)
defaults = self.class.respond_to?(:defaults) ?
self.class.defaults(self) : false
...
But I'm not crazy about that API (or rather, lack thereof), as it
doesn't communicate intent. I think I'd rather do something like this.
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
default_attributes do |thing|
{:name => (thing.type ? "Some #{thing.type}" : "Unnamed")}
end
end
or
class Thing < ActiveRecord::Base
default_attributes :defaults
def defaults
{:name => (type ? "Some #{type}" : "Unnamed")}
end
end
Or we could have something that looked like factory_girl
(http://github.com/thoughtbot/factory_girl/tree/master), though the
feature may not justify the complexity. (Not to mention that if you
wanted the complexity, you could just use factory_girl, though until
now I'd only thought of it as an alternative to fixtures in testing.)
-hume.
---
http://elhumidor.blogspot.com/
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
