Hey guys,
thanks a lot for you proposal. I think we all agree that rails-i18n
can be improved and input on that is highly appreciated.
This is a very long mail, so I'll cut some of it.
On 21.04.2009, at 11:08, geekQ wrote:
All our approaches still required extensive monkey patching
Hi!
I was using a default scope with an :order option as well as
an :include option and came across a bug in the
ActiveRecord::Base.exists? method. It turns out it drops any :include
option from the current scope. My solution is a bit radical maybe, but
simple. I have exists? invoke find_initial
I noticed that the formatting somehow got screwed up.
You may find the html version easier to read
http://github.com/geekq/rails/blob/854140d9401ee25fae5b5e0f8c1436818507e796/rfc-internationalization.markdown
Regards,
Vladimir
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received
Should flash still be persisting through redirects? Until the recent
release, when I had:
flash[:error] = Foo
redirect_to login_url
The flash would be populated and displayed on the login page. Now the
flash is being cleared. Is this intentional, and if so why?
--
Amos King
aka: Adkron
Are you sure there's not a double redirect? This can happen if you're using
a plugin like ssl_requirement, where the initial redirect to login_path goes
to port 80, then the plugin jumps in and redirects to the same url on port
443.
-John
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:30 AM, Amos King
Get this man hooked up to the wagon! It's great to see this level of
thought going into Rails I18n, and equally wonderful to know that his
efforts could positively impact the framework.
On Apr 21, 5:08 am, geekQ vladimir.dobria...@innoq.com wrote:
We have been working on a Rails application
We are only using ssl. It worked before the last upgrade. I can't
find a double redirect.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 7:10 AM, John Trupiano jtrupi...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you sure there's not a double redirect? This can happen if you're using
a plugin like ssl_requirement, where the initial
I've expanded my monkey patch (see it here: http://gist.github.com/88448)
to the point where I wouldn't call it proof of concept anymore. It
works very nicely in practice as well. The concept of scoped
associations and composing of scopes, regardless of my implementation,
seems strong. Luke, I
(Just posted it in Talk and realized it makes more sense to ask here.)
Simple example.
class Car ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :engine
validates_presence_of :engine
validates_associated :engine
end
class Engine ActiveRecord::Base
belongs_to :car
validates_presence_of :car
end
@car
Given that the GSOC Rails projects involve some ActiveRecord
refactorings, doesn't this type of improvement make sense?
--dwf
On Mar 8, 12:42 pm, Niels Ganser ni...@herimedia.com wrote:
I realize us Rubyists don't necessarily think the classic works in the
field such as Fowler's Refactoring
Which problem is it solving for you ? Do you see any performance gains
that I'm missing ? Do you believe if this is making any code easier to
understand ? Could you please provide failing tests which are to be
fixed by the refactoring in question ?
Thanks.
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:15 PM, DWF
I agree. Please write a patch :)
Eloy
On 22 apr 2009, at 18:18, hakunin wrote:
(Just posted it in Talk and realized it makes more sense to ask here.)
Simple example.
class Car ActiveRecord::Base
has_one :engine
validates_presence_of :engine
validates_associated :engine
end
Shouldn't you be validating presence of the key rather than the object
itself?
On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:29 PM, Eloy Duran wrote:
I agree. Please write a patch :)
Eloy
On 22 apr 2009, at 18:18, hakunin wrote:
(Just posted it in Talk and realized it makes more sense to ask
here.)
A key wouldn't be possible because you'd need to save a possibly
invalid record first to be able to do that.
Let me note that I don't necessarily have a need for
validate_presence_of to work in this case, but rather the ability of
having the parent object around when doing stuff in the
Eloy, I'll give it a shot. : )
Flinn, not necessarily. In this case we talk about associated in-
memory object which doesn't have id yet. In my opinion
validates_presence_of :engine_id should behave the old way - check for
id - since we explicitly ask for it.
On Apr 22, 2:52 pm, Flinn Mueller
Well, if the child cannot exist without parent, it seems natural to
have such validation in the child - must have parent. (In addition to
your reasoning.)
On Apr 22, 3:26 pm, Eloy Duran eloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
A key wouldn't be possible because you'd need to save a possibly
invalid
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Pratik pratikn...@gmail.com wrote:
Which problem is it solving for you ? Do you see any performance gains
that I'm missing ? Do you believe if this is making any code easier to
understand ? Could you please provide failing tests which are to be
fixed by the
I had a closely related question today, which was why this code does N
+1 queries?
order.order_items.each {|oi| oi.order}
Why must each order item do a query to find its order? It seems like
Rails should recognize the reciprocal nature of the associations.
-kevin
On Apr 22, 9:18 am,
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 AM, kscaldef kevin.scaldefe...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a closely related question today, which was why this code does N
+1 queries?
order.order_items.each {|oi| oi.order}
Why must each order item do a query to find its order? It seems like
Rails should
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Michael Koziarski
mich...@koziarski.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:16 AM, kscaldef kevin.scaldefe...@gmail.com wrote:
I had a closely related question today, which was why this code does N
+1 queries?
order.order_items.each {|oi| oi.order}
Why must
FWIW, that's basically how Sequel handles it, with the :reciprocal
option, though instead of punting by default if multiple associations
match, it picks the first matching association.
The first matching association sounds like it could be prone to
surprises but we could see how it plays out.
Should flash still be persisting through redirects? Until the recent
release, when I had:
flash[:error] = Foo
redirect_to login_url
The flash would be populated and displayed on the login page. Now the
flash is being cleared. Is this intentional, and if so why?
No, and this works for
Recently, in looking at profiling data from two different
applications, I found that something like 5% of the application's time
was being spent in converting strings to times on database fetches.
Digging in, I found that the fast routine for doing this only worked
if there was no
It looks like a domain squatter grabbed rubyonrails.org -- anybody
know what's going on there?
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=rubyonrails.orgtype=domain
Chris
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Here's a screenshot, in case people are seeing different things due to
DNS propagation--
http://skitch.com/kampers/bcapb/rails-consultants-ruby-code-api-at-rubyonrails.org
On Apr 22, 6:08 pm, Chris Kampmeier chrisgkampme...@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like a domain squatter grabbed
Thanks for the heads-up. Core team is investigating; it's probably
just an auto-renew that didn't.
Mike
On Apr 22, 2009, at 8:08 PM, Chris Kampmeier wrote:
It looks like a domain squatter grabbed rubyonrails.org -- anybody
know what's going on there?
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/2543-make-activerecordbaseexists-invoke-find_initial-to-support-include-scopes#ticket-2543-2
Comments?
Exists is only really for indicating whether or not there's a record
associated with that ID, if you want to obey all
27 matches
Mail list logo
