On 4 October 2011 22:07, Jim Burgess wrote:
> Many thanks for your quick help Colin.
> That's a nice solution to the problem and it's also good to find out
> what the best practice is.
I am not sure I am confident that this is *best* practice, but it
works for me. Others more experienced may wel
Many thanks for your quick help Colin.
That's a nice solution to the problem and it's also good to find out
what the best practice is.
Jim
--
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 pos
Anton Ivanov wrote:
> Hi,
> this (in class Project):
> def copy(other_project)
> other_project.issues.each do |other_issue|
> self.issues << other_issue.copy
> end
> self.save
> end
>
Not tested.. just thinking..
Get the link(associative) table that's used in the many to many
associ
Adam Akhtar wrote:
> Hi again, thanks so much for your help i really appreciate it. I wanted
> to write another association like you said before but there is no
> Alphabet_Partner class to write it in. Its just a self reference to
> Alphabet table.
[...]
You don't need an AlphabetPartner class
Thanks again.
Ok i know why your saying to have a consistent sorting method, its so as
to avoid a duplicate situation i.e. if i always sort by the letter and
id then i will always save as ab and not ba. If theres already an ab
there and i have some validations i can avoid reading in another ab.
Hi again, thanks so much for your help i really appreciate it. I wanted
to write another association like you said before but there is no
Alphabet_Partner class to write it in. Its just a self reference to
Alphabet table.
Alphabet_Partner is only defined in
class Alphabet < ActiveRecord::Base
Adam Akhtar wrote:
> Thanks again.
> Ok i know why your saying to have a consistent sorting method, its so as
> to avoid a duplicate situation i.e. if i always sort by the letter and
> id then i will always save as ab and not ba. If theres already an ab
> there and i have some validations i can
Adam Akhtar wrote:
>
> Marnen many thanks again for your help.
You're welcome.
> So if i sort them by their name then id, and I have A and B with ids 1
> and 2 respectively then in my pairing controller id do
> @pairing = Pairing.new(params[:pairing])
> @pairing.save (Which would use the callb
"So A has an Ingredient_Partner B"
was a typo, should have read alphabet_partner
--
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 thi
> No, I am saying you would *not* have to have two pairs. Rather, when
> you construct a Pairing, pick an unambiguous way of sorting the two
> Alphabet objects so that ab and ba will map to the same thing. For
> example (untested):
>
> class Pairing < AR::B
> before_create do
> [...@
Adam Akhtar wrote:
[...]
[...]
>> Use a Pairing class with a polymorphic association.
>
> I thought polymorphic associations are used when you have several
> different models which have the same relationship with anohter one. I.e.
> You want to have comments associated with your models for Phot
Hi Thanks for your reply and your suggestions. Im a bit confused, could
you help clarify the following -
>> Hi if i have one model say with objects for each letter of the alphabet
>> e.g a,b,c ... x,y,z and i want to allow users to create there own
>> favourite pairings of these e.g.
>>
>> ab,
Adam Akhtar wrote:
> Hi if i have one model say with objects for each letter of the alphabet
> e.g a,b,c ... x,y,z and i want to allow users to create there own
> favourite pairings of these e.g.
>
> ab, cd, ef, gp and allow them to discuss via comments on each pairing,
> whats teh best way to mo
Why is a good question here. In other words, what are you going to do
with the computers and users once
You get them.
Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
On 11/02/2009, at 4:42 AM, James Bond wrote:
>
> Rey wrote:
>> If I understand correctly what yo
Oh by the way if you do that you'll end up with an array of arrays.
Might not be what you want.
Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
On 11/02/2009, at 11:50 PM, Sijo Kg
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> @users = User.find(:all,:conditions=> ['name LIKE ?', "James%"])
>
Or use has_many :through instead.
Blog: http://random8.zenunit.com/
Learn rails: http://sensei.zenunit.com/
On 11/02/2009, at 11:50 PM, Sijo Kg
wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> @users = User.find(:all,:conditions=> ['name LIKE ?', "James%"])
> @user_computers = []
> @users.each do |user|
> @user_computers
Sijo Kg wrote:
I mean something like this:
SELECT users.name, computers.name FROM users, OwnComputers, computers
JOIN OwnComputers ON users.id = OwnComputers.users_id
JOIN computers ON OwnComputers.computers_id = computers.id
WHERE user.name LIKE "James%"
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com
Hi
@users = User.find(:all,:conditions=> ['name LIKE ?', "James%"])
@user_computers = []
@users.each do |user|
@user_computers << user.computers
end
@user_computers now contains computers you need
Sijo
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--
> How can I find all users whose name is "James%" and their computers (not
> mobiles)?
>
> User.find(:all, ??)
Help ???
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Group
Rey wrote:
> If I understand correctly what you need, a computer may belong to many
> users and one user can have many computer, right? same for phones, I
> assume.
Yes
> In this case, the relationship is :has_and_belongs_to_many, but you do
How can I find all users whose name is "James%" a
If I understand correctly what you need, a computer may belong to many
users and one user can have many computer, right? same for phones, I
assume.
In this case, the relationship is :has_and_belongs_to_many, but you do
not need the classes OwnComputer and the other one. you just need two
tables (
The dirty object feature doesn't work for has_many associations. I
solved the problem by wrapping a transaction around the code to revert
the changes in the database. I kinda wish, ror could keep the
functionality between regular fields and association fields consistent
to avoid confusion.
kind
This sounds like the dirty object feature of Rails 2.1 would work
great:
http://ryandaigle.com/articles/2008/3/31/what-s-new-in-edge-rails-dirty-objects
Maybe even try to utilize some callback methods so you can capture and
display the changes to the user:
http://railsforum.com/viewtopic.php?id=2
23 matches
Mail list logo
