Doug wrote: > A lot has been posted about validation issues with associations, > however, I don't see this issue addressed specifically. > > ex: > class Foo > has_one :schedule, :dependent => :destroy > validates_presence_of :schedule > > class Schedule > belongs_to :foo > validates_presence_of :foo_id > > this creates a circular dependency that breaks test frameworks like > pickle and machinist. > At first I was surprised a little that you can contsruct objects with > this constraint > ...you can of course with "new" and "save" > ...though I it sounds like the destroy will cause a problem. > http://mohammed.morsi.org/blog/taxonomy/term/29 > > is there a workaround for tests? > > or is this a bad idea from the start?
It's a bad idea from the start. Get rid of the validation on the has_one side. > > Nevertheless, It seems to me that while a noble goal -- to validate > both sides of the assoication. > How else to do it? Don't. It's unnecessary. Best, -- Marnen Laibow-Koser http://www.marnen.org mar...@marnen.org > thanks? -- 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-t...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
