On Oct 18, 8:25 am, Nate Wiger <[email protected]> wrote: > Great - completely agree the association should be checked. Looks > like that's broken in the existing API when you pass a full object > though. You can actually null out an arbitrary object: > > http://pastie.org/659500 > > The change you made will definitely catch it in the case where I pass > an ID, but we should ensure the common case too I think. Something > like this: > > http://pastie.org/659524.txt > > Sticking with the Sequel strictness goal (which I love) I made it an > exception. > > I'm sure there's a way to do it w/o a DB call, but I'm still learning > the internals.
I like your idea, and took it a step further: http://pastie.org/659666.txt. I still used a DB call, since I think that is more reliable. However, I'm pretty sure that breaks remove_ for many_to_many associations. We can probably just remove the check for the object already being associated in the many_to_many case, since that won't negatively affect things. We should also add all relevant specs that we added for one_to_many associations for many_to_many associations as well. While they currently call the same internal methods, they should have separate specs. Jeremy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sequel-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
