similar to: Updating objects in arrays

Shouldn''t update_all be updating lock_version? As you can see from my console session below, it is upating the record (changed running attribute to true and returned 1 to show 1 recored was updated). But it did not increment lock_version. And optimistic locking is working correctly otherwise. As you can see below, lock version = 562 before and after the update_all call but it is

Hi everyone, I have a order with order_lines use case. On changing the lines, I want to be sure no one else changed the order. So I use lock_version on the order. This works fine if something is changed on the order record. But now i have the situation that I delete, alter and add order lines without changing the order record itself. I have to check and increment the order#lock_version however

I''m working on an app that makes use of rails'' optimistic locking feature and seeing some possibilities for improvements. It seems a bit tedious to have to add :lock_version to forms wherever the model is used. You also have to "hack" around rails'' UJS feature to add it as a URL parameter when using remote: true, method: [:put, :patch, :post, :delete].

Hi, Is there a way to tell Rails that the magic field name for optimistic database locking is not lock_version? I have a legacy database where the optimistic locking field is named "version". Thanks, Phil -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi all I have a Model like this: class Member < ActiveRecord::Base attr_accessible :username, :email, :first_name, :last_name end I have created a scaffold using script/generate scaffold member members Using the URL localhost:3000/members/edit/1 I can edit all attributes, including created_at, lock_version etc.! But it should only show the attributes I listed in attr_accessible! What

I am currently experiencing concurrency issues after moving from MySQL to SQLite. My original program worked fined using MySQL but is now returning "SQLite3::BusyException" errors. The same result happens whether or not I enable the allow_concurrency flag. If I do manually acquire a lock on the SQLite DB the problem would disapear, but I thought that rails was supposed to handle this

hi, i have this problem where in i''m able to upload the images using file_column to the server but i''m not able to view the images.i''m not able to see the images but then i''m able to view the image name when i click on my show action. can any one please help?? THIS IS MY LOG as to what happens when i do the image upload. Processing UploadController#create

All, I''ve written a simple job/opportunity tracking database app via RoR. I have about 10 internal users. Sometimes 2 people will want to update the same record at more or less the same time and they collide. In particular user 1 may edit a record, then get distracted, and finally an hour later they click save. During that hour user 2 may have pulled up the record, edited it, and

The error is caused by the save! method updating an object that another thread (most likely in taskomatic) already updated. In the case of this race condition, we retry saving. However, a proper fix would involve fixing the locking. --- src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb | 23 ++++++++++++++++++++--- 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb

Hello. The acts_as_versioned plugin works fine ... till the adjunction of optimistic locking via the lock_version table column. Here is the problem description: Without optimistic locking things are fine: # ++++ The table creation migration ++++ % cat db/migrate/001_create_tables.rb class CreateTables < ActiveRecord::Migration def self.up create_table :softwares,

Hi All, I''m having some trouble deciding when and how to implement optimistic locking. Let''s say I have a multiuser Rails app, and let''s say it stores, among other things "vital" customer information. The standard methods created by the Rails generate scaffold script look like this: def edit @customer = Customer.find(params[:id]) end

Hello, to implement some some kind of optimistic locking, I want to build a view, where an object is displayed together with a link containing the data of the displayed object. My first try looked something like <%= object.object_discription %> <%= link_to "action", :action => "take_action", :data => object %> this won''t work because object is of

I am facing strange problem. I have an object @part=MainPart.find(:all) 1. @part.each_with_index do |mainpart,index| 2. <p><%= mainpart.object_id%></p> 3. end Here problem is that object_id is reserved for rails. Here object_id field in my table . Now i want to get value <%= mainpart.object_id%> is giving GARBAGE VALUE. Is there any solution apart from

In Rails 2.x, calling touch on an ActiveRecord model would update the ''lock_version'' on the model, if it were present. It would produce something like this in SQL: UPDATE `foo` SET `updated_at` = ''2010-07-23 10:44:19'', `lock_version'' = 2 WHERE ''lock_version'' = 1 This would ensure that your optimistic locking policy will be followed

I didn''t get the memo on this :P members_controller.rb:12: warning: Object#id will be deprecated; use Object#object_id Line 12 is: @member = Member.find(@current_member.id) How _should_ I be writing that line? Thanks, Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hello It seems that datetime_select, is creating an instance of the Time class. Why would that be? I found this while building a site where people can create vigils (prayer vigils, peace vigils, etc). When I added a validation method that compared start_date to created_at, it generated the error: ArgumentError (comparison of Time with DateTime failed): I was able to put a breakpoint in the

Does rails have any builtin functionality similar to that of ASP.Net''s encryptable ViewState? For those that don''t know what the ASP.Net viewstate is, it is essentially just a hidden form field with the name __VIEWSTATE, that stores a series of encoded(or encrypted) key/value pairs as it''s value. When the form is submitted the viewstate value is decoded/decrypted on the

If I have an exception while trying to save an object, how can I tell Rails that it''s not saved yet? The object has a lock_version (used for optimistic locking). This is what I do: ins = MyClass.new( arguments ) begin transaction do ins.save! bunch_of_other_stuff() end rescue ins.save! # problem here! end The object''s save() sets the internal object state in a saved

--- src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb | 12 ++++++------ 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb b/src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb index 155ff5e..b5b7b81 100755 --- a/src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb +++ b/src/db-omatic/db_omatic.rb @@ -270,10 +270,10 @@ class DbOmatic < Qpid::Qmf::Console end def object_props(broker, obj) - target =

Hey All ! I ended up browsing to Eric Hodel''s blog the other night, and found his entry about the new cache_model and memcache-client. Now, it looks like it''s "officially" out in the open: http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/articles/2006/01/20/caching-models-with-memcached In my application, I''ve been staying away from caching my models, and instead just doing