al#ticket-446-8
Cheers,
Nik
On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Nik Wakelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 1:44 AM, Michael Koziarski
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Pratik,
>>>
>>> Could I ask why?
>>
>>
it though, the UTC migrations will end up generating
weird next-migration numbers.
I _really_ like the idea of getting the pretty-looking numeric
migrations back, but if the tradeoffs aren't worth it, oh well.
:D
Nik
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Koz
>
> >
>
--
gration file.
>
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 12:51 PM, Nik Wakelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> My thoughts exactly:
>>
>> http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/631-move-migration-utc-timestamps-inside-file
>>
>> It'
be possible to just move the UTC timestamps to the first line of
> the file? Then you could number them incrementally (if you want) and use
> the timestamps to break the tie when there is a conflict.
>
>
>
>
> >
>
--
Nik Wakelin
+64 27 424 5433
* Blog: h
er) if params[:created_by_me] == "1"
>> scope = scope.country(params[:country]) if params[:country]
>> @comments = scope.all
>
> This is a nice use case, care to work with nik on implementing it?
>
> --
> Cheers
interested
>> to hear what everybody thinks.
>
> I'd be a little concerned about adding some special case code to the
> sanitize_sql logic, but if some work was undertaken to rationalise all
> that stuff at the same time then this kind of thing could be a nice
his stuff pretty easily.
Pratik asked me to restart the discussion here, so I'd be interested
to hear what everybody thinks.
Thanks!
Nik
--
Nik Wakelin
+64 27 424 5433
* Blog: http://codetocustomer.com/blog
* WWR: http://workingwithrails.com/person/7401-nicholas-wakelin
* Company: http
ll. And if you chose to ignore those, the day a change in
>> line endings fixes a migration, you have an even trickier case of hell.
>
> I really haven't given much thought to a completely different approach
> because I thought the simple sequence worked well. However,
f you take a
>> look at the questions asked at RailsForum or WWR. What I'm saying is
>> that Rails, to me, is a whole lot of good practices and rules and it
>> should be consistent in that way without any exceptions - not even
>> something as "humble" as the helpers.
>
r you to really read
> it, but of course I've got some more ideas regarding these helpers.
> I'd be more than happy to provide patches if you agree with me that
> this is an issue worth being addressed.
>
> Please let me know what you think.
>
> Best,
> - Clemens
>
ents, suggestions and hopefully +1's. :)
http://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994-ruby-on-rails/tickets/467-hash-conditions-belongs_to-sugar
(The obvious thing to do is expand that syntax out to cover all
assocation types, but I thought I'd start small).
Cheers!
Nik
--
Nik Wakelin
Co
e patch, you can name your app something different:
>
> rails --app-name=myapp myapp/trunk
>
> I have some automated Rails generating scripts that need this
> so I'm really hoping it's not to late for something like this to make
> it into trunk.
>
n.name, :url
> => person, :html => { :class => "some_person" }). But that's not what
> you're doing here, so I'm +1 on the current patch.
>
>
> >
>
--
Nik Wakelin
(027) 424 5433
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
d what the core team
thinks).
Thanks!
Nik Wakelin
--
Nik Wakelin
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
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 rubyon
7199 and it looks like that change
> came in r7309. We'll have to upgrade and test it out for our release
> next week. Thanks!
>
> -- Russell
>
> On Aug 28, 4:30 pm, "Nik Wakelin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > We&#
ch file
> that seemed to be the best alternative, which is to turn off etags for ie
> xml http requests. Thanks,
> Russell
>
> >
>
>
--
Nik Wakelin
(027) 424 5433
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message beca
at - I'll +1 your
> patch (after testing it in my own env, of course) when you submit.
>
> Regards,
> Trevor
>
>
> On 31-Jul-07, at 4:09 PM, Nik Wakelin wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I've got a patch on the way for this same bug, if anyone wants to
> collabor
Hey All,
I've got a patch on the way for this same bug, if anyone wants to
collaborate :)
Cheers,
Nik
On 8/1/07, Pratik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > What does everyone think? Should validates_uniqueness_of ignore
> > with_scope() values when checking for conflicting records?
>
> Yes. Thi
I'm happy to put together a patch if everyone is happy with that soution...?
On 5/26/07, Steven A Bristol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On May 24, 2007, at 10:22 PM, Nik Wakelin wrote:
> >
> > > How about this for a solution.
&
handle that the usual way with a
> before_validation callback. Sorry if that's silly, I haven't been
> following this thread in detail.
>
> --josh
>
> On May 24, 2007, at 10:22 PM, Nik Wakelin wrote:
>
> > How about this for a solution.
> >
> > Th
ActiveRecord::Base
def random(value)
value.upcase * 4
end
end
Thoughts?
On 5/23/07, Mislav Marohnić <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 5/23/07, Nik Wakelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 1) If an overridden accessor is there, (i.e you've defined
>
ote:
>
> On 5/23/07, Nik Wakelin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Ah lame I totally just patched this.
> >
> > Maybe we could fix validates_numericality_of? Rather than changing
> > every field helper because of one case? I suppose it is more difficu
opaque. Perhaps what's
> needed is a way to make it easier to wrap attributes with custom
> accessors and mutators?
> --
> Cheers
>
> Koz
>
> >
>
--
Nik Wakelin
(027) 424 5433
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You receiv
cific format.
What is the desired behaviour/api here? Do we want to add a parameter
that says "call model method"? Call the model method if it is there?
Or just ignore it and change the docs?
I'll whip up a patch in any case :)
Cheers,
Nik
--
Nik Wakelin
(027) 424 5
24 matches
Mail list logo
