A team member just found the following out about an inconsistency in the
Rails documentation. Although:
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/7188/files
indicates for the dependent option: "When no option is given, the behaviour
is to do nothing with the associated records when destroying a record
I like this idea and would use it.
-Amiel
http://carnesmedia.com
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Scott Johnson <7.scot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I find I often use delegate and many nil guards in my facades. Adding a
> default_value option to delegate would simplify this, but I am interested
>
Do you have a PR you could send over? I'm taking the silence here as either
a :+1: or people have no idea what you're talking about.
Cleaning up url_for is a pretty huge task. By putting it into a module are
you suggesting that a user would need to manually include it? I'm not sure
how one exclude
Thanks.
I will work up a pull request and see if I can get it added.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Amiel Martin wrote:
> I like this idea and would use it.
>
> -Amiel
>
> http://carnesmedia.com
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Scott Johnson <7.scot...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> I find I of
What is the advantage over?
def name
person.name || ""end
I am really against adding new options to delegate method since all that it
does is define methods like this in the class.
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at
On Dec 13, 2013, at 5:44 PM, Scott Johnson wrote:
> I find I often use delegate and many nil guards in my facades. Adding a
> default_value option to delegate would simplify this, but I am interested how
> others feel about it.
>
> Implementation would look something like:
>
> class PersonFa
This is why I wanted to ask the group before making the pull request.
As for Rafael's question -- it is no different from writing the methods
out, but either is delegate. I just found that many times where I would
have used delegate I ended up writing out the individual methods only to
add || = "
We already rejected this feature before. See
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/11908
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Scott Johnson <7.scot...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is why I wanted to ask the group befor
Fair enough, thanks for the reference.
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Rafael Mendonça França <
rafaelmfra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We already rejected this feature before. See
> https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/11908
>
> Rafael Mendonça França
> http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
> https://gith
url_for is not a trivial thing, it's intertwined with many aspect of rails.
I agree that it's not trivial to use url_for to link dynamically different
engine's routing. I think I understand your frustration with the routing
system and rails::engine.
On Monday, December 16, 2013 1:11:38 PM UTC-5
10 matches
Mail list logo