It is useful in a small number of situations, mostly where you need to ensure that two different references to the same object actually refer to the same instance. I've only needed to use it twice, both times were where we have callbacks updating multiple related objects based on data held in each other.
Anyway, if anyone else does understand what that caveat actually means I'd appreciate an explanation. On Tuesday, November 13, 2012 4:17:22 AM UTC, Greg Donald wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 4:09 AM, Paul Leader > <pa...@paulleader.co.uk<javascript:>> > wrote: > > Perhaps I'm bing a bit thick and missing something obvious (possible), > but I > > found the caveats listed in section 3.5 of the Associations Rails Guide > > badly worded and confusing. > > > > The section gives an example with a has_many <-> belongs_to relationship > is > > setup with inverse associations on both side, but then states the caveat > > "For belongs_to associations, has_many inverse associations are > ignored." > > > > Could someone actually explain what that means in concrete terms? The > > example and the caveat appear to be contradictory. If the caveat is > correct > > then I'm not sure I understand how the example works. > > I've never needed :inverse_of. Looks like academic masturbation to me. > > > -- > Greg Donald > -- 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 rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/8IsIfAtQ6c8J. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
