[Rails-core] ActiveRecord::Base.exists? returning 1 instead of true

2013-08-01 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
Hi, I know 1 is truthy and nil is falsy, so it still does as described in the method documentation, but in previous versions it returned true/false (as I expect by its signature). Is there a reason this has changed? Thanks! -- Luiz Felipe G. Pereira -- You received this message because you ar

Re: [Rails-core] [3.1.0.rc4] Problem with reflections being empty causing whiny nil

2011-06-15 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
Discovered it was an incompatibility issue with another gem 'has_many_polymorphs' On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Draiken wrote: > Hi, I have an engine that worked perfectly on rails 3.0.x and now is > breaking on a simple method. > Basically it creates categories that can have subcategories bu

Re: [Rails-core] Re: Sprockets 2.0.0.beta.11 breaks assets

2011-06-27 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
Even with beta10, sprockets are not working with 3-1-stable rails branch https://github.com/rails/rails/issues/1822 -- Luiz Felipe G. Pereira -- 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 rubyonra

Re: [Rails-core] Lack of foreign-key constraints support in ActiveRecord

2011-12-02 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
Just make it optional, changing the default in application.rb. I agree with no foreign keys by default, since it is what happens right now. You can't update rails and have all your migrations magically starting to add FKs. On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 9:32 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: > Em 01-12-

Re: [Rails-core] Routing + ActionController::TestCase

2012-01-04 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
That's why there are route tests, right? On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 3:20 PM, Colin Law wrote: > On 4 January 2012 17:13, Nick Sutterer wrote: > > Hi, just wondering why it makes sense to verify routing in an > > AC::TestCase test. > > > > class XX < ActionController::TestCase > >it "returns an

Re: [Rails-core] Shouldn't "rails plugin new" create an Engine by default?

2012-06-05 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
It's a "rails plugin new" not "rails engine new". It doesn't create a default Engine because not all plugins are engines. If it's an engine and not just a plugin/railtie you would normally want the "--full" option. If not, just create it. It's only 4 lines of code. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Re: [Rails-core] Shouldn't "rails plugin new" create an Engine by default?

2012-06-05 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
'd really want is to always create engines and call > them plugins. > > I can't really understand why you consider useful to have plugins, engines > and railties as separate concepts. > > Best, > Rodrigo. > > Em 05-06-2012 13:48, Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira escr

Re: [Rails-core] Shouldn't "rails plugin new" create an Engine by default?

2012-06-05 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
ide app, load routes at config/routes.rb, load locales at config/locales/*, and load tasks at lib/tasks/*." I think it will also add lib/assets to the assets path nowadays, but the doc might be outdated. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: > > Em 05-06-2012 1

Re: [Rails-core] Shouldn't "rails plugin new" create an Engine by default?

2012-06-05 Thread Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira
ails/railtie.rb But this is not a core issue. On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote: > Em 05-06-2012 15:40, Luiz Felipe Garcia Pereira escreveu: > >> The same rails guides like you pasted before shows a simple example of >> "just a plugin"