On 22 Jun 2015 15:24, pseidemann p...@zattoo.com wrote:
hello,
currently in rails you have two methods to save a record: `save` and
`save!`.
I think `save` is often used wrong because the return value is not always
checked.
even the documentation is not very clear about the subtle different
On 2 December 2013 09:09, Alex alxtsk...@gmail.com wrote:
This attack is not possible with non js content loaded by XHR or iframes,
as the browser enforces cross-domain restrictions for both, and evil site
will not be able to get at good site's content.
If the operators of EvilSite have gone
On 15 August 2012 20:23, Jason Fleetwood-Boldt t...@datatravels.com wrote:
How many ruby developers does it does to ask if something is not false?
Although non-standard, I would argue that the most logical way to write that
is:
unless object.nil?
I know it's a double-negative, but in fact
On 8 August 2012 14:33, Ken Collins k...@metaskills.net wrote:
But when using UUIDs, there is no reason to ask the database for a
newly-inserted record's ID.
There is if ActiveRecord uses it for a primary key.
But ActiveRecord will have generated it, and given it to the DB to
insert - the
On 9 May 2012 11:29, mcasimir maurizio@gmail.com wrote:
About 'this is duplicated code': what about STI?
eg
class Content AR::Base
class Article Content
class Video Content
Here Video instances will respond to :text, and Article will respond_to :url
without batting an eye. moreover
On 2 March 2012 21:18, Mark Peterson playersp...@gmail.com wrote:
Again, not sure where you got the rage from.
I tend to get it from top-posting with no trimming ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group,
On 28 June 2011 01:14, Ryan Bigg radarliste...@gmail.com wrote:
where(LOWER(email) = ?, email) isn't good enough?
No.
It's a particular problem when using the dynamic
find_or_create_by_email(value) and the ilk.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
On 4 February 2011 20:30, Paul pkm...@gmail.com wrote:
I've always thought that validating the :parent (and not the foreign
key) is the *more* correct thing to do ... but I don't understand why
Rails does not reset the parent association when the parent_id is
changed as demonstrated here,
On 4 February 2011 20:36, Michael Pavling pavl...@gmail.com wrote:
That's my preference anyhoo...
oops! This is rails-core list... take it over to talk
apologies...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Core group.
To post to this group
On 21 October 2010 20:26, blackbug blackbug...@gmail.com wrote:
(Are you running railroad on the aplication's root directory?)
Are you?
--
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
10 matches
Mail list logo
