There is supposed to be a rewrite in the near future of Actiive Record's with_scope which is the underlying implementation mechanism for named_scopes. It would probably be a good idea to create a ticket in Lighthouse with a patch with failing tests so that they can be addressed when the rewrite happens.
On Mar 27, 5:16 pm, Chris Cruft <c...@hapgoods.com> wrote: > This thread risks getting stale, which would be a shame because the > need is obvious and we've got a couple of good proposals on the > table. I took the time to more carefully review Ryan's proposed > syntax, and I'm loving it. I will try to work up an implementation > but I'll probably need someone else to forward port it from 2.2.2 to > 2.3.2. > > Incidentally, the LH discussion Ryan alluded to is > here:https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/11 > > This ticket, in turn, references an old Trac issue. > > On Feb 27, 2:45 pm, Ryan Bates <r...@railscasts.com> wrote: > > > > > -1 on inheritance solution. It is creative, but I imagine that can get > > messy very quickly if you have multiple attributes you're trying to do > > this with. > > > As for Luke's solution, I think it is good. But I do wonder if the > > interface should be different. Before named scopes it was often > > necessary to make custom associations with a :conditions hash. Now > > named scopes remove this need and offer a much more flexible solution. > > Going back to a custom association here with conditions > > (important_tags) seems to go against the grain of scopes to me. > > > What if it were possible to use the :include option to include named > > scopes? It might look like this: > > > class Product < ActiveRecord::Base > > named_scope :visible, :conditions => { :visible => true } > > named_scope :available, :conditions => { :available => > > true }, :include => :visible > > end > > > This solves the problem of duplication across named scopes in one > > model, but how does this address your problem? Here's where it gets > > kind of cool. As you know, the :include option is also used to include > > associations. So what if you could nest named scope includes through > > associations? > > >http://gist.github.com/71618 > > > I'm not entirely sure how complex the implementation of this would be, > > but I would personally love to see this functionality. I know there > > was some discussion of this on Lighthouse some time ago, but I don't > > know what became of it and I cannot find it at the moment. > > > What do you think? > > > Ryan > > > On Feb 27, 10:03 am, Duncan Beevers <duncanbeev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Instead of extracting a specific piece of a named_scope's proxy > > > options, I would probably elect to use a more flexible, > > > object-oriented solution using inheritance. > > > >http://gist.github.com/71604 > > > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Luke Redpath <ljredp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > In my current project, I have an association model that has various > > > > flags available. To keep the implementation of these flags > > > > encapsulated, I created named_scopes for each flag and use these > > > > scopes for finding and creating. > > > > > This model sits between two others as the join model in a > > > > has_many :through association. I actually wanted various > > > > has_many :through associations that use the same join model but > > > > different scopes. Unfortunately has_many :through doesn't have > > > > a :scope option; I could use :conditions to get it working but I've > > > > now broken the encapsulation I aimed for when I introduced the named > > > > scopes and created unnecessary duplication. > > > > > Hopefully this rather contrived example should make it clear what I'm > > > > aiming for. > > > > >http://gist.github.com/71585 > > > > > And my initial implementation, currently in use in our app (tries to > > > > extend ActiveRecord in the least-intrusive way): > > > > >https://gist.github.com/9d7f86e27014ef5df280 > > > > > And now, my attempt to do it properly as a patch to ActiveRecord, with > > > > a test. > > > > >http://gist.github.com/71587 > > > > > I don't expect this patch to be completely ready for inclusion; there > > > > are probably other things to consider such as, do you just want to > > > > pull the :conditions from the proxy? Is there anything else to pull > > > > in? Could this be written in a better way (probably, my knowledge if > > > > the AR internals is slim). > > > > > Any thoughts? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
