Hi!
In 3.2.7 this code was possible if 'auto_models_for_select' is nil :
%= select_tag :model, auto_models_for_select, :include_blank = true,
:disabled = auto_models_for_select.nil? %
In 3.2.8 this should be :
%= select_tag :model, auto_models_for_select || '', :include_blank =
true, :disabled =
Hi!
In 3.2.7 this code was possible if 'auto_models_for_select' is nil :
%= select_tag :model, auto_models_for_select, :include_blank = true,
:disabled = auto_models_for_select.nil? %
In 3.2.8 this should be :
%= select_tag :model, auto_models_for_select || '', :include_blank =
true, :disabled
vishal singh wrote in post #1060022:
In users table their is wrong field name i.e password_digest,it should
be
only password not password_digest
Someone mentioned 'password_digest'? Only 'password' and
'password_confirmation'.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this
Rodrigo Vieira wrote in post #1059872:
Be aware that, it is not safe to set passwords changeable via
mass-assignment.
Your decision, please? How it to solve?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on
This example doesn't work without 'attr_accessable: ... , :password,
:password_confirmation ...'
and with
'has_secure_password'
How to set the record field comming from form field?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
I simply add in model:
attr_accessible ... :password, :password_confirmation, ...
it work
but it can not absolutely truly
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Talk group.
To post to this group,
For developing an Engine.
Where there should be a database.yml file for a configuration of
connection with database?
I place into engine_dir/test/dummy/config/database.yml
It works.
But why there? It not an obvious place for configuration placement, it
only test-directory.
--
Posted via
I use Engine.
How to get access to url_helpers, such as name_path or _name_url, in
a separate class? In application it simple:
Rails.application.routes.url_helpers.name_path
But how to get access to url_helpers in Engine? When I use
Rails.application.routes.url_helpers.root_path, then I get '/',
And how about a good documentary code and all as good documentation to
it?
For some reason developers of PHP weren't too lazy to create
documentation design team. I do not think that those who well write
documentation as well write also a code. But they are able to write well
documentation.
was:
I on the contrary want, that Ruby the first because it is fine
language and the fine tool for developers. But to be the first, it is
necessary to do a little more than it is simple to write the fine tool -
at least to make rather good documentation.
I on the contrary want, that Ruby became
I don't know, what advantage is received by developers from popularity
of language, from popularity of framework. But the fact remains. One
develop a product from beginning to end, others - hope that people will
get into source codes and all will understand, or someone another will
write good
Michael Pavling wrote in post #1058271:
On 25 April 2012 09:50, Sergey Ezhov li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
And how about a good documentary code and all as good documentation to
it?
Of course, that's the ideal situation :-)
Which of those frameworks has that? ;-)
Nobody. But they attract
But you haven't answered my suggestion that if you think the core team are
lacking in documentation skills, could you help contribute?
I started to use only recently the Ruby on Rails. Yet the professional
also I do not know all subtleties and details of this framework.
The vicious circle turns
And let's not forget what I already referred to as the great Ruby API
docs:
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.8.6/
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.8.7/
http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/
In http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9.3/ - Core
Try, for example, to find a method method_missing.
Michael Pavling wrote in post #1058287:
On 25 April 2012 11:11, Sergey Ezhov li...@ruby-forum.com wrote:
Try, for example, to find a method method_missing. Fail!
http://rubydoc.info/stdlib/core/1.9.3/BasicObject#method_missing-instance_method
example fail...
And generally it absolutely
Look, you're talking about things being difficult for beginners, and
then wave method_missing as an example - to play with that is pretty
serious meta-programming which will blow up horribly if you don't know
what you're doing. There *is* plenty of reference for *how* to use
method_missing if
Certainly, I will be glad to help! As soon as I will acquire experience
with the Ruby on Rails, I will try to make the contribution to
documenting.
For now I only stated the opinion of an existing problem in study for
beginners.
Very much I hope that developers of the Ruby on Rails will take
Robert Walker wrote in post #1058397:
Kevin McCaughey wrote in post #1058376:
Robert Walker wrote in post #1058190:
If every method, of
every class, were fully documented by the team building Rails then
nothing would ever get done.
This is the perenail excuse - It's too big, so we just
Kevin McCaughey wrote in post #1058376:
STOP! Stop adding bits on and go back and tidy up the mess.
Thanks! Very sensible thought! Well formulated.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Ruby
on Rails: Talk
These are all excuses. All problem in an approach to documentation
creation, unwillingness to create normal documentation. Creators of RoR
should try to create good documentation, and not just good framework.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--
You received this message because you
There is a set of examples where people approached more responsibly to
documentation creation, for example: http://www.yiiframework.com,
http://kohanaframework.org, http://framework.zend.com/
I suppose, they reflected on convenience of use of tools to developers.
--
Posted via
from forum Ruby:
http://api.rubyonrails.org/ - disgusting documentation! There are no
descriptions of all classes, there are no descriptions of their
correlations, there are no descriptions of many methods (there are only
references of existence of methods, names of methods, but unless it is
Feeble documentation - weakness of Ruby on Rails
Directly I apologize for my English - I used the automatic translator.
If there is a possibility,
find the person, knowing Russian better, it will translate you correctly
the text.
Address to developers of Ruby and Ruby on Rails:
Hi
It would be
I apologize, confused the site name: not php.org, it is correct -
php.net
Already switched to Ruby, long ago didn't look on a site PHP.
==
Извиняюсь, перепутал название сайта: не php.org, правильно - php.net
Уже переключился на Ruby, давно не заглядывал на сайт PHP.
--
Posted via
Directly I apologize for my English - I used the automatic translator.
If there is a possibility, find the person, knowing Russian better, it
will translate you correctly the text.
Address to developers of Ruby and Ruby on Rails:
(If someone has a possibility to communicate directly with
25 matches
Mail list logo
