needed, I'm
already helping out on several other groups and it has become kinda routine
for me.
Best
--
Kenneth Kalmer
kenneth.kal...@gmail.com
http://opensourcery.co.za
@kennethkalmer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core"
at 2:42 PM, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> Cool, I'll kick off an attempt to get the expected behavior. If anyone
> wants to stop me, please do it quickly :)
>
> Best
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Eloy Duran wrote:
>
>> I would go for the latter at this point.
http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/2100-patch-change-behaviour-of-associations-after_add-callback
(Starting a new thread)
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> Cool, I'll kick off an attempt to get the expected behavior. If anyone
&g
Cool, I'll kick off an attempt to get the expected behavior. If anyone wants
to stop me, please do it quickly :)
Best
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:31 PM, Eloy Duran wrote:
> I would go for the latter at this point.
> Eloy
>
> On 28 feb 2009, at 13:25, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
>
also want to add that I strongly feel that #after_add
should only be called once the association is binded permanently in the
database, since that is the behavior of all the other ActiveRecord
callbacks.
Any thoughts?
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:25 PM, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
> This getting v
il?
Best
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Eloy Duran wrote:
> Thanks for investigating Kenneth!At least now we know I didn't break this
> for 2.3 RC2 :)
>
> Eloy
>
> On 28 feb 2009, at 13:07, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
>
> Hi Eloy
>
> Thanks, went back to dec91a2e065
> On 27 feb 2009, at 15:40, Kenneth Kalmer wrote:
>
> Hi everyone
>
> Please help me to identify the issue here. Either with the code or the
> documentation, not sure where the issue lies at the moment. Code first, then
> question.
>
> I have replicated the issue with
docs and work on another solution, or do I attempt to
change the behavior to the one outlined above?
Kind regards
--
Kenneth Kalmer
kenneth.kal...@gmail.com
http://opensourcery.co.za
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
t the case, lets fix it.
Obvious, but how many others are aware of this. Maybe have
ActiveSupport emit a warning message when it detects the presence of
the JSON gem, telling users who rely on the JSON gem to include it
afterwards? This doesn't fiddle with anything, and gives the user
great fe
lied to master and 2-2 stable. Are there any other pending gems
> changes we should investigate before we cut a 2.2 point release to
> address
>
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Kenneth Kalmer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Matt, applied to the broken
even if it is all the wrong ones, just to keep
the thoughts churning and get us closer to a solution.
Anycase, thanks for your patience.
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensourcery.co.za
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because y
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:24 PM, Kenneth Kalmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Michael Koziarski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>>
>> > Hi all
>> >
>> > Just spotted a issue when using the json & activesupport
omething unknown to me at this
stage. And depth it seems is 0, so I tested with 0 + 1. This is inline with
the json gems take on "def to_json(*a)".
As for the fix, just changing the argument lists to use a bang parameter and
then appropriate extracting what activesupport expects from the
on signature
is "def to_json(*)", and in activesupport's Time it's def to_json(options =
nil). Looking through the other activesupport extensions for JSON it seems
to be the same case.
Any suggestions? Any objections to me divi
s like config.gem 'rspec' in test.rb but not development.rb. Can
>> > you reproduce this in an empty test app?
>>
>> > So unless I'm misreading this, it seems we're requiring application.rb
>> > before we try t
uby-on-rails/tickets/1464
>
> (patch against 2-2-stable branch)
>
> --Matt Jones
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensourcery.co.za
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on R
27;t expect it!
The error occurred while evaluating nil.dependencies
vendor/rails/railties/lib/rails/gem_dependency.rb:77:in `dependencies'
all_dependencies = specification.dependencies.map do |dependency|
GemDependency.new(dependency.name, :requirement =>
dependency.version_requirements)
end
Than
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Kenneth Kalmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kenneth Kalmer>
> The code is available at
> git://github.com/kennethkalmer/rails-broken-gems-example.git and shows
> exactly how to simulate the breakage mentio
Original thread at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core/browse_thread/thread/8409d0d8f006f8f5,
my apologies.
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensourcery.co.za
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kenneth Kalmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Stephen Bannasch
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>So unless I'm misreading this, it seems we're requiring application.rb
>>>before we try t
ad.
Stephen, did you ever figure out what caused the issue? Battling with
it now and trying to find the offending piece of code loading
application.rb
Best
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://opensourcery.co.za
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message
ls. Nick Sieger
> has made a start on it.
>
> We can probably make this use case a little easier at the same time.
Sure sounds like it. Any way in which I can help to make it does
indeed cover this kinda use case at the same time? I'm following
Nick's fork on github to check t
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 12:56 AM, Kenneth Kalmer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I followed what I though would be a safe path to multi-connection
> bliss, briefly summarized here:
>
> module ActiveRecord
> class Legacy < Base
> self.abstract_class = true
> e
can have their own database connection,
surely they can have their database configuration as well?
Making a local change now and running all the tests to check what the
impact is, just though I'll put the idea out there in the meantime.
Best
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
d AND
`companies`.`type` = 'Firm'
The fix is trivial, and all tests pass in the same fashion as before
the patch. Hope its accepted quickly...
This was tested with MySQL, discovered by chance while debugging the
paginated_finder plugin.
Kind regards
--
Kenneth Kalmer
[EMAIL PROTECTED
25 matches
Mail list logo
