I'm not from the core but in my experience the chances are better opening a
PR with the feature, specially if the implementation is simple.
I can even review the code, I've made a few PRs before with the
implementation of the ignored columns and I'm familiar with the code.
On Thursday, August
I'm thinking that you may use a app helper for that.
Let's say that you are using erb, you may have something like that:
app/views/
shared/
_foo.html.erb
_bar.html.erb
v1/
some.html.erb
v2/
some.html.erb
You can implement a simple helper like that:
<%= shared 'foo' %>
Why aren't partials a good option?
On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 10:21:44 AM UTC-3, Cory Gwin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am exploring a possible feature for an app I am working on. Ideally we
> would like to be able to symlink templates so we can use them in multiple
> paths easily, partials
I believe you can open the pull request, after all the core team only says yes
or no after seeing the code :/
> On 8 Nov 2016, at 22:06, em...@leaplines.com wrote:
>
> The question im asking is only about conditions doing of classes when things
> are true in the hash. My `selected?` etc
This shouldn't impact the implementation, it could be literally anything
(helper method, object method, local variable or anything).
The specification would be { classname: true/false }.
link_to user.name, user_path(user), class: { btn: true, active: user.active? }
// => object method call
+1
What we are currently doing is remove db/schema.rb from source control but
it makes us to run every migration on the CI server, what became slow as
the project grows.
On Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 12:27:04 PM UTC-3, Chad Woolley wrote:
+1 on allowing control over formatting, there's been
Seems like you can do it using the poster option.
On Sunday, March 29, 2015 at 6:30:21 PM UTC-3, Aaron Cordovez wrote:
It seems like there is no way to provide a fallback image with Rail's
video_tag.
Is there a specific reason that the method was created this way?
think of a good name?
On Wednesday, 17 September 2014 05:08:30 UTC+3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Hello guys,
I just came across this post
http://www.justinweiss.com/blog/2014/08/25/the-lesser-known-features-in-rails-4-dot-2/?utm_source=rubyweeklyutm_medium=email
which shows
I'm against to count and size works equally since I would want to know how
many grouped records do I have (i.e.: how many roles do I have on
determining relation).
I think that count and size is working as both should.
Although, if you want to count all records of a grouped relation, you have
I think what you need is a middleware which compresses the body, like this
one: https://github.com/paolochiodi/htmlcompressor
On Friday, August 8, 2014 9:05:23 PM UTC-3, Frank Tellefsen wrote:
Based on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8098317 (HTML minifier
revisited) and specifically:
.
About the to_a method, it would be necessary to receive the model instance that
is calling the to_a method to do the necessary work, it would happen for all
methods that can have a custom implementation: first, last, to_a, etc.
What do you guys think about that?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
/association_shard_tracking.rb
On Wednesday, June 25, 2014 9:28:36 PM UTC-3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Hello guys,
The Salsify Engineering team made a gem to automatic eager load
associations on rails, take a look here:
http://blog.salsify.com/engineering/automatic-eager-loading-rails
If you want to avoid to read
to some pretty weird cookie stuff when passing data
between a Rails app and non-Rails applications. The session is handy, but
parsing it anywhere but in Rails is difficult and *updating* it outside of
Rails is more difficult.
—Matt Jones
On May 17, 2014, at 9:12 AM, Gabriel Sobrinho
gabriel
I would argue that if you have some information that can't be hijacked and
even parsed on javascript (httponly cookies can't be read on javascript at
all), why would you use cookies instead of the rails session?
On Friday, May 16, 2014 7:07:42 PM UTC-3, fedesoria wrote:
I would like to see
to compute.
Am I missing a way to do that or we really need to change something on active
record to be able to do that? If so, where can I start?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group
The pull request I mentioned: https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/8638
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:48:43 AM UTC-3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Hello guys,
We’re working in some applications where we need to customise the JSON
errors output in a more robust way (the front-end have a lot
Got a working prototype using a monkey
patch: https://gist.github.com/sobrinho/f634f52a4ab7d47588f5
But object.errors.full_messages is not working anymore, we may need to
reimplement the full_messages method.
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 10:50:50 AM UTC-3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
The pull
I think you're doing it on the right way, patching the initialiser.
At Gemfile you have to use:
platform :ruby do
gem 'mri-specific-gem'
end
plataform :jruby do
gem 'jruby-specific-gem'
end
And if you need to something in a initialiser, you may check the platform
using bundler stuff:
if
That's the only way right now.
Although, seems wrong to me check if a relation is a null relation, that's
the point of null objects, you should not know that's a null object at all
(may be necessary in your case but seems wrong to me).
What you can do is something like `relation.empty?' which
.
Basically, if a form is rendered through a js view, do not render the CSRF
token.
Homakov, that would fix the security concern without removing the .js.erb views?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Dec 2, 2013, at 7:37 AM, Chris Mear chrism...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 Dec 2013
but the same idea
applies, deprecate the usage on rails itself but allow who explicitly
wants/needs to use.
Time to pull request?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:19 PM, Egor Homakov homa...@gmail.com wrote:
Apparently many readers have no clue how
This fix seems great.
Homakov, what do you think? May fix the problem?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:09 PM, Javan Makhmali jav...@gmail.com wrote:
As many have already mentioned, enforcing request.xhr? for js requests
provides adequate protection. You
Homakov,
What Godfrey suggest may be implemented on the server side instead of
client side without being hacked so easily?
We may raise an exception by default when the host is not allowed, assuming
that request.host is trustable.
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 7:49:42 AM UTC-2, Courtenay
Not that would require to configure the application host manually like:
Rails.application.config.host = 'example.com'
Rails.application.config.hosts = %w(example.com example.com.br)
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:32:30 PM UTC-2, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Homakov,
What Godfrey suggest may
Nevermind, it is not safe since the information about who is requesting is
a header that can be changed.
On Saturday, November 30, 2013 12:33:26 PM UTC-2, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Not that would require to configure the application host manually like:
Rails.application.config.host
Hey guys,
I have a situation where I'm creating a object which have some items and
the items have a validation that need to be executed on the server side but
rails do not map these validation messages to the specific child.
A contrived example may be a invoice which have 2 items and for some
Awesome, waiting for this!
On Monday, November 11, 2013 2:54:42 PM UTC-2, Rafael Mendonça França wrote:
https://github.com/rails/rails/pull/8638
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Gabriel Sobrinho
That’s great, thanks Xavier!
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Nov 6, 2013, at 5:01 PM, Xavier Noria f...@hashref.com wrote:
We plan to move the API to YARD, hopefully for 4.1 unless there is something
unexpected in the transition.
These would be use-cases for the @private
/8c2c60511beaad05a218e73c4918ab89fb1804f0#commitcomment-2211685
Rafael Mendonça França
http://twitter.com/rafaelfranca
https://github.com/rafaelfranca
On Mon, Nov 4, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Gabriel Sobrinho
gabriel@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
França,
There is a reason for that? They sound useful in a lot
User.all.where! instead”)
User.all.where!(email: ‘b...@example.com’)
#= []
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Nov 5, 2013, at 11:31 AM, Allen Madsen allen.c.mad...@gmail.com wrote:
The primary reason I would be against these being public is the following
example:
User.where!(email
I see, makes sense, thanks! :)
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
On Nov 5, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Rafael Mendonça França rafaelmfra...@gmail.com
wrote:
I prefer to stick with that decision.
It is easier to teach people when we say Relations are immutables than
Relations
França,
There is a reason for that? They sound useful in a lot of scenarios.
On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 2:02:54 PM UTC-2, Rafael Mendonça França
wrote:
The bang methods are private and should not be used in applications (see
the :nodoc: in the method definition)
Rafael Mendonça França
Hey guys,
What do you think about tracking habtm changes?
Apparently we can't do that because when you change a habtm association it
is changed immediately on database instead of waiting the save call (not
sure why and the problem may not be because of that).
Current behaviour:
Not sure about how it will impact the application but this is the first
shot: https://gist.github.com/sobrinho/6309391
On Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:56:27 PM UTC-3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Hey guys,
What do you think about tracking habtm changes?
Apparently we can't do that because when
Hi everyone,
The active record documentation says the following:
Note that new records are different from any other record by definition,
unless the other record is the receiver itself. Besides, if you fetch
existing records with select and leave the ID out, you’re on your own, this
predicate
I think it should be documented, maybe not on guides but somewhere.
I've opened a issue about a similar subject in the past assuming that was a
bug instead of the expected behavior.
Note that I agree that's a advanced topic but the truth is we need to
document it somewhere.
I would be happy
an
email to rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
that).
object.class.increment_counter(:attr_name, object.id)
object.class.update_counters(object.id, :attr_name = 1)
I believe that should work fine for this purpose.
On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 11:28:08 PM UTC-2, ajsharp wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:41 PM, Gabriel Sobrinho
concurrent update, you should use some lock
and handle it. Adding documentation to talk briefly about locking should be
fine I guess.
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Gabriel Sobrinho
gabriel.sobri...@gmail.com wrote:
Carlos,
I'm suggesting to document this because the increment
It makes sense!
I have a debt entity in my application and payments this entity can happen
three or more times in parallel (stupid brazilian banks, don't ask me why
they do it).
Since I have to keep a cache column of the paid value for the debt, I have
25 workers (sidekiq) that can call
(!) methods explaining that
is not safe to use it concurrently will avoid to think they are.
On Jan 23, 2013, at 4:21 PM, Matt Jones al2o...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 23, 2013, at 4:03 AM, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
It makes sense!
I have a debt entity in my application and payments this entity can
Nice, I will do that this week :)
On Wednesday, November 7, 2012 6:39:17 PM UTC-2, Jon Leighton wrote:
On 07/11/12 19:59, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
There's a reason to postgresql adapter do not supports bulk alter?
I think there's no reason other than that nobody has implement it yet,
so
Hi,
There's a reason to postgresql adapter do not supports bulk alter?
I tested a bulk alter on psql and it worked to change the type of two distinct
columns.
If there's no reason to be disabled on postgresql adapter, I would to submit a
pull request :)
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
I always do that too :(
On Sunday, November 4, 2012 11:31:01 AM UTC-2, Matt Huggins wrote:
My main issue with validates is that it's easy to mix up with validate
(
http://apidock.com/rails/v3.2.8/ActiveModel/Validations/ClassMethods/validate
).
This is my biggest issue as well. Every
That is a problem for me either.
I can't use before_save callback because I need to show the default value
on forms.
So, I have a date field and the default value is today, but when user open
the form, today must be on that field.
I'm setting this kind of default value on controller like
UTC+2, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
ChuckE,
It is not the best solution but some years ago I worked on a project with
that case, one shared database.
To solve the problem of shared migrations, we created a rails application
just to run the shared migrations on the database.
That required
ChuckE,
It is not the best solution but some years ago I worked on a project with
that case, one shared database.
To solve the problem of shared migrations, we created a rails application
just to run the shared migrations on the database.
That required an extra step before each application
Dmitry,
I commented in your gist to use the StringIO instead of Tempfile to avoid
IO on disk.
On Monday, September 10, 2012 6:41:38 PM UTC-3, Dmitry Vorotilin wrote:
The new method, captures all descriptors, but I'm not sure about
replacement original method.
On Tuesday, September 11,
I think this problem can be fixed in so many ways...
Overwrite the association method, using try on view or create a new
method like that: https://gist.github.com/3655751#gistcomment-567880
You can even use a decorator :)
One important point is if you need that everywhere in your system, you
Rodrigo,
I don't get what you mean with nested levels :)
On Aug 6, 2012, at 9:11 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Em 05-08-2012 13:32, Gabriel Sobrinho escreveu:
About the implementation of validation, we are using that:
http://pastie.org/private/osa3pmono5l1ykrd7vipwa
With regards
Rodrigo,
To do that you just need to add the validation to credit card and partner.
Do you mean that? http://pastie.org/private/o5zyoyqsefzhdsmwg3uoq
On Aug 6, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Em 06-08-2012 10:27, Gabriel Sobrinho escreveu:
Rodrigo,
I don't get what you
Anyone have some opinion?
On Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:17:01 PM UTC-3, Gabriel Sobrinho wrote:
Hi,
Currently uniqueness validator uses database queries which not work for
nested forms.
For example, I have a company form which have many partners and each
partner have a person
-level even though you can use validators
in Ruby as well to make it easy to handle simple cases but you should always
replicate the validations in the database level as well.
Well, that is my opinion since you asked :)
Cheers,
Rodrigo.
Em 05-08-2012 11:36, Gabriel Sobrinho escreveu
in a single
request. Even testing such forms are painful in my opinion. It is much easier
to split the application in multiple small parts that are easily testable
separately.
Good luck with your decisions,
Rodrigo.
Em 05-08-2012 12:42, Gabriel Sobrinho escreveu:
Rodrigo,
I'm
that:
http://pastie.org/private/osa3pmono5l1ykrd7vipwa
On Aug 5, 2012, at 1:21 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
Em 05-08-2012 13:10, Gabriel Sobrinho escreveu:
Rodrigo,
This approach seems very interesting but I have one question.
What you do if user create a company and do not fill the partners
complex to the proposal of uniqueness validator
but that is a common validation for each system I've worked in last years.
WDYT? Something like that should be on the active record or a gem?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
gabrielsobrinho.com
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
What do you guys think about adding support to handle database views in active
record?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com
My vote is to extract to a external gem.
It's fine if you like fixtures, but it's fine if you like factories too.
I think the benefit of release cycle decoupled from rails will be valuable.
What are the downsides?
On Friday, July 6, 2012 8:38:01 AM UTC-3, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
One
I see.
What about release cycle?
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:22 PM, Xavier Noria wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Gabriel Sobrinho gabriel.sobri...@gmail.com
wrote:
My vote is to extract to a external gem.
It's fine if you like fixtures, but it's fine if you like factories too
ok, thanks for explanation Xavier :)
On Jul 6, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Xavier Noria wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Gabriel Sobrinho gabriel.sobri...@gmail.com
wrote:
I see.
What about release cycle?
Well, in the case of Rails the value of extracting something like this to a
gem
team agree :)
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscr
because mysql do not support ddl
transactions.
What you think, guys?
Cheers,
Gabriel Sobrinho
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from
I started to use konacha on my rails applications and it feels so right.
Would be great to have something like konacha integrated on rails
applications or at least as default suggestion on Gemfile like happens with
coffe-script.
On Friday, May 25, 2012 12:58:44 AM UTC-3, Rodrigo Rosenfeld
Hello,
Currently if you have a string column that have only number values (think a
year column using string by mistake) and you want to change to integer, you
can't.
If you apply this monkey-patch will be possible:
https://gist.github.com/1393441
Note: if some value can't be casted by
: Core group.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
rubyonrails-core+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
Cheers,
Gabriel
Take a look (not my production code but reproduces the desired behavior):
``` ruby
class Post ActiveRecord::Base
attr_accessible :published_at, :name
has_and_belongs_to_many :categories, :order = lambda {
[Category.arel_table[:published_at].desc, Category.arel_table[:name]] }
end
```
```
66 matches
Mail list logo
