This looks useful to me. If you did implement this, it would be less rigid if you accepted a class instead of a class name, because that would allow you to pass anything that responds to #new.
-Joe On Thursday, September 6, 2012 8:29:40 AM UTC-4, Kensodev wrote: > > Hey, > > For a while now, I am thinking about implementing a feature into Rails. > Since it's not a simple single liner, I thought I should get feedback on > it and maybe some guidelines before I continue on with coding it. > > The feature I would like to implement is nil_object pattern. > > Here's some code for example > > https://gist.github.com/3655723 > > As you can see, the post belongs to a user and I am printing out the user > display name for every post. > > This is a pretty common thing in every rails app I ever saw, some preload, > some let it go N+1 without caring. > > The problem is, that if you don't have the user in the database, the view > code will fail on NoMethodError for NilClass. > > To Avoid this here's what I want to do: > > https://gist.github.com/3655751 > > This way, if the database has no record for that user, it will load the > nil_user class and the code will now break. > > This can come in handy not only for the belongs_to but for the has_one > relation as well. > > So... This is the feature I want to implement, thoughts? feedback? > guidelines? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rubyonrails-core/-/EX61uUxjIkQJ. 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.
