Btw, that could also resolve the "how to combine `default_scope`s issue, if that's something that is still desired.
default_scope where( :foo => 1 ) And then: default_scope where( :foo => 2 ) # effectively negates previous default scope default_scope and( :foo => 2 ) # same as above default_scope or( :foo => 2 ) # merges with original All nice and explicit. AND: User.or( :foo => 2 ) ...would also combine with any existing default_scope, whereas: User.where( :foo => 2 ) Would AND it and therefore negate the default scope. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM, Jason King <j...@handle.it> wrote: > Just want to get this onto the table, "what most people expect" is not the > only measure of a good API choice. > > To specifically answer Aaron's question, for #4598, I think the fix for > that would be for subsequent `default_scope`s to just overwrite previous > ones entirely. Not to merge with them. > > For the broader question which seems to be what this thread is about, ie. > what to do with: User.where(:foo => 1).where(:foo => 2) how about adding > alias `and` as an alias for `where`, and adding `or` as an alias for "where > that does ORs". So the syntax could be: > > User.where(:foo => 1).and(:foo => 2) > > > And: > > User.where(:foo => 1).or(:foo => 2) > > > I'm sure I don't need to state what SQL each of those turn into (the real > test for a good API :) > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Robert Pankowecki < > robert.pankowe...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Aaron Patterson >> <aa...@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote: >> > The intentional change fixes this bug: >> > >> > >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/4598-default_scope-treats-hashes-and-relations-inconsistently-when-overwriting >> > >> > If there is a different way to fix that ticket, I'm happy to apply >> > patches. >> >> The different way is to make both cases return an empty array. David >> (who created the ticket) expects something different but I am not sure >> that this is what most people expect. >> >> Could we provide a different method for such behavior as expected by David >> ? >> >> Robert Pankowecki >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > -- 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.
