+1 for sorting bugs out and commiting this. HMT just helps doing some associations where it would be hard to do. Even if it is not fool proof, allowing us to associate models further where needed is welcomed. I have been in a couple of projects where coding would be easier with this patch.
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 23:44, Jason King <j...@handle.it> wrote: > I'm very much in favor of hmt working to an infinite depth. From my own > experience as well as responding to others, I know it's something that > people just expect to work. > > I'm also concerned about bugs, but I like your suggestion Jon. > On Dec 1, 2010 12:18 PM, "Jon Leighton" <j...@jonathanleighton.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Jose has responded on the pull request: > > > > =========================================== > > Hey mate, thanks for the pull request. But could you please send this > > request to Rails mailing list and get feedback from more people? > > > > At first, I am -1 on this feature. Rails has_many :through, without > > being nested, already have a few limitations that I really would like to > > see fixed before adding more complexity. For example, in the case "User > > has many groups through subscriptions", the following does not work: > > > > group = user.groups.build > > group.save > > > > As it does not save the associated object subscriptions. > > Calling .create() works as expected though. The lack of the ability to > > support a dependent option (like :destroy, :delete) for the associated > > record is also another limitation (currently we have dangling records). > > We can find others examples in LH. > > =========================================== > > > > I wanted to respond here to prevent the discussion being split over > > multiple places: > > > > I see the concern. Though we should be clear that nested through > > associations will only ever be read-only, as writing to them would not > > make any sense (not enough information to determine correct join > > records). > > > > What I would propose is that I do an audit of tickets on LH that are > > related to has many through. I suspect some of them will be solved by my > > patch (as it rewrites lots of HMT code). I could identify others which > > are still an issue. Then maybe we could identify which other tickets > > should be fixed before this nested patch goes in. I'm happy to look at > > other tickets as a stepping stone to getting this patch in. > > > > However it would be good if people could be up front and say now if > > there are general concerns with this patch in principle, or whether > > concerns are just around not introducing more bugs in HMT given the > > number of existing bugs. > > > > Hope that makes sense. > > > > Cheers, > > Jon > > > > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 02:27 -0800, Jon Leighton wrote: > >> The patch has now been "verified" on Lighthouse. I.e. 3 people have > >> tested and +1ed it. I've done a pull request here: > https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/121 > >> > >> I merged latest master over the weekend and will continue to merge as > >> necessary to keep it up to date. > >> > >> Jon > >> > >> On Nov 29, 1:42 am, lardawge <larda...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > Jon, > >> > I would make sure this currently merges into master and send a pull > >> > request on github with the lighthouse ticket in the comments... Need > >> > get more eyes on it. > >> > > >> > On Nov 17, 3:40 am, Jon Leighton <j...@jonathanleighton.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > Hi all, > >> > > >> > > In October I worked on a patch for a long-requested feature: > >> > > associations that can go :through anything, including other :through > >> > > associations. > >> > > >> > > The Lighthouse ticket is here: > https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/1152 > >> > > >> > > I believe this is a robust, well-tested patch. I want to get it > merged, > >> > > but there has been very little response to the patch on Lighthouse. > I > >> > > should probably have posted on here before now - but here I am now > >> > > anyway. > >> > > >> > > Can anyone help verify/review this patch? Any suggestions about how > best > >> > > to get it accepted by the core team? > >> > > >> > > Also, can somebody with the relevant permissions changes the status > from > >> > > "incomplete" to "open" please? I am actively maintaining the branch > and > >> > > merging in the latest master from time to time. I will also happily > deal > >> > > with any issues which arise as a result of this patch. > >> > > >> > > Thanks, > >> > > Jon Leighton > >> > > >> > > --http://jonathanleighton.com/ > >> > > >> > > signature.asc > >> > > < 1KViewDownload > >> > > > > -- > > http://jonathanleighton.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 rubyonrails-c...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<rubyonrails-core%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > -- 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-c...@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.
