Yeah, you're right, sorry, thanks so much for your help. Probably for the best that i changed the model name from Request anyway, might as well commit that to my svn since it's advertised as a Rails reserved word.
I just posted this to the forum with a different subject, since it ended up having nothing to do with this, but. But I was forced to really get down and dirty with my testing, and it turns out it's because I had over-ridden [] and []= on one of the models involved. I got away with that in Rails 1 (perhaps AR didn't used to use these methods?), but not in Rails 2. Okay, more refactoring, this one's even more of a pain then the last one. Oh well, I guess I was being too clever before. Jonathan Frederick Cheung wrote: > On 10 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > >> >> Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest doesn't >> seem to have done it. >> >> I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest (nee >> Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key. >> >> It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an assocation, even when >> not the name of the model, is a no-no too? > > I'm not convinced that has anything to do with this at all. If you > could post your teeny tiny example I might be able to work out what is > going in (given that I wrote the code behind include in 2.1.2) > > Fred -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
