On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:59:11 PM UTC-2, Matt Jones wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, 12 February 2013 20:29:49 UTC-5, Rafael C. de Almeida wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Have you guys noticed that conditional validation with
>> validates_associated does not work well when you are creating a new record?
>>
>> Consider this gist: https://gist.github.com/aflag/4780225
>>
>> The Lawyer class has validates_associated on address conditioned on
>> whether the Lawyer data comes from a known source or not. So, if
>> lawyer.source equals to some string, then lawyer.address must not be
>> validated. However, if I'm trying to create a new record, it is validated
>> regardless of whether source is nil or not. Is it expected to behave like
>> that? Is that a bug?
>>
>>
> The behavior is intentional, though perhaps not documented as well as it
> should be. It has to do with the autosave behavior for has_many on new
> records - the part that enables you to build a new record, add some unsaved
> child records (phones, etc in your example) and then save the parent object
> and get all the others saved as well.
>
I see. Thank you for the clarification. However, isn't that behavior
counter-intuitive? Why should "valid?" return a different thing depending
on whether a nested model is saved or not? If you want to skip the
validation of one nested model, but still validate other things, then your
only option is doing something like:
object.save validate:false
object.reload
object.valid? || object.delete
That also has the potential problem of leaving some of the nested model
data behind in the database.
Maybe there's some gem that changes that behavior. Anyhow, at least now I
know what's going on, I can come up with a workaround.
Cheers,
Rafael
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-talk/-/DGY2FF-gYwIJ.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
