similar to: Trouble combining :has_many, :finder_sql and :conditions to create a sub-search

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 800 matches similar to: "Trouble combining :has_many, :finder_sql and :conditions to create a sub-search"

2005 Dec 27
0
How do I combine :finder_sql and :conditions to perform a sub-search on a custom has_many relationship?
I''m sure there''s something right under my nose that I''m missing. I have two tables with two parallel one-to-many relationships. I wish to use the :finder_sql parameter to essentially ''or'' the two foreign keys. What isn''t working for me is performing a ''sub-search''. Let''s say the tables are "stores" and
2005 Dec 30
5
HABTM with finder_sql problem (Rails bug?)
I''m building an app that needs i18n support across the entire database (i.e. localized attributes). In order to do this I''ve created a special HABTM join table that can be associated with _any_ other table: create table language_strings ( for_table varchar(255) not null, foreign_id int not null, language_id varchar(5) not null, attr_name varchar(255) not null, value text
2006 Jan 04
5
habtm recusive
I have a people table: CREATE TABLE people ( id int(10) unsigned NOT NULL auto_increment, first_name varchar(75) default NULL, middle_name varchar(75) default NULL, last_name varchar(75) default NULL, PRIMARY KEY (id) ) ENGINE=MyISAM DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1 AUTO_INCREMENT=1272 ; and a people_people table: CREATE TABLE people_people ( person_id int(11) unsigned NOT NULL,
2006 Feb 28
3
[AR] #{id} namespace visibility used in finder_sql
Dears, [Rails 1.0.0] I''m working with a legacy schema, and around my 20+ models i''ve used some AR constructs. They are based on a finder_sql doing some dirty sql and using #{id} from the ''pivot'' model for extracting data in other tables. like : class Division < ActiveRecord::Base set_table_name "legacy_division" set_primary_key
2006 Oct 30
2
It this possible: finder_sql-like behavior for belongs_to?
Guys, I have a need to support as has_many/belongs_to relationship on a legacy(kind of) schema. The reason I say kind of is that the schema does have "id" columns that are used in many associations, but this particular has_many/belongs_to association needs to support different ones. I''ve attached to code at the end of this email. Suffice it to say I need to use the standard
2006 Aug 15
2
has_many + finder_sql & :include
Hello, In a model I have: has_many :things, :finder_sql => '' select * from other_things '' + '' where id = #{id} '' When I do MyClass.find(:all, :include => :things) I get a weird error: from c:/ruby/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-1.14.4/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract_adapter.rb:120:in
2006 Jan 06
1
has_many with :finder_sql question
hi all, I have a Class, Client, which has_many projects (Project class). the projects depend on a session_id variable, however. So the question is, how can I do the following: has_many :projects, :finder_sql => "SELECT p.* FROM projects p INNER JOIN projects_users pu ON pu.project_id = p.id WHERE pu.user_id = #{session[:user_id]}" The problem is that I need to filter a
2006 Jan 17
15
legacy database and finder_sql nightmare!
This is my first rails app with a legacy database and I''m having a terrible time getting the models set up correctly. I have an order table that has a primary field named order_number. I have a name table with a primary of item_number. These two tables are liked by the item_number and the order_number, but not as you might think. If the order_number is 2500, then each entry in
2006 Jun 09
1
finder_sql issue with has_many :through
I have an inner join query that Action Record can''t seem to pull off conventionally, so I''m trying to use :finder_sql to utilize an sql query that works beautifully in SQL. The problem is, when I try to call the method, I get the following: private method `gsub'' called for #<Array:0x267de04> Here is my has_many code: has_many :mod_privileges,
2007 Mar 21
1
Eager Loading with custom :finder_sql
Is there any way to do eager loading when using custom :finder_sql ? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
2007 Sep 06
1
finder_sql patch problem
Hello, I have the finder_sql problem and I found this patch http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/7576; but I don''t know how to use this patch?? I copied all the changes into the correct files and restartet the server of my ruby on rails application, but nothing changed. Could someone tell me please how I have to use this patch?? Thanks Manfred
2010 Jul 16
2
Xen / KVM CentOS-5 How To Document
Does anyone have any idea where I can locate a 'GOOD' how-to document on implementing Xen and/or KVM on a CentOS-5.3 system? I'm currently running VMware Server 2.0.2, but I would like to make the move to the open source virtualization - if possible. What I found is somewhat short on the networking piece. It doesn't matter if it's TUI or GUI. Thanks, Gene Poole
2005 Dec 29
9
Single Table Inheritance
Hi all, Quick question for STI. With the following setup: class Company < AR::Base; end class Firm < Company; end Why does Firm.find(:all) return all Companies, not just those that have type==''Firm''? -- Alex
2006 Jan 19
7
bug in has_many count?
I can submit a patch, but wanted to confirm I''m looking at this right... The docs indicate that if you specify a has_many association with :finder_sql, but no :counter_sql, it constructs the appropriate counter sql by substituting the SELECT clause. But has_many_association.rb doesn''t seem to do that -- it just passes Base#count_by_sql the finder_sql, which doesn''t
2006 Aug 13
1
Is :finder_sql using #{id} broken?
Hi All, It seems that :finder_sql in a HABTM association only interprets a single quoted #{id} the first time through a query. I see examples of this being used in a few places (though with has_many) and I don''t really see how to use :finder_sql without a #{id}. Am I missing something or is this just broken? -- Paul Haddad (paul.haddad@gmail.com paul@pth.com)
2006 Jul 24
1
has_many + finder_sql
from the api I got: <pre> has_many :subscribers, :class_name => "Person", :finder_sql => ''SELECT DISTINCT people.* '' + ''FROM people p, post_subscriptions ps '' + ''WHERE ps.post_id = #{id} AND ps.person_id = p.id '' + ''ORDER BY p.first_name'' </pre> I would like to pass in the
2005 Dec 28
9
Idiom question - assertions which aren''t in tests
All, Although I''ve been keeping an eye on Ruby for several years now, I don''t have a huge amount of experience with it. So please forgive me if I''m missing something obvious. I''m in the process of writing my first really "serious" Rails app and would appreciate your advice. I am wondering if there is a standard idiom for including assertions in
2010 Jan 25
0
has_many, :finder_sql, setting attributes
Hi all, My question is somewhat complicated, but bear with me. My project has a number of models: User, Program, and Team. Users belong to multiple Programs. Programs have multiple teams, but Teams belong to one program. For each Program a User belongs to, he can belong to multiple Teams. (Think of this in an athletic context where users are athletes, programs are universities). So my
2006 Feb 13
0
has_many finder_sql #{id} single/double quotes voodoo
I never would have figured this out in many moons: has_many :subscribers, :class_name => "Person", :finder_sql => ''SELECT DISTINCT people.* '' + ''FROM people p, post_subscriptions ps '' + ''WHERE ps.post_id = #{id} AND ps.person_id = p.id '' + ''ORDER BY p.first_name'' Variable
2011 Sep 27
0
has_many with :finder_sql returns [nil]?
Is it supposed to do that? I find it very confusing. AR 3.0.10 class Unit has_many :units, :finder_sql => proc { "SELECT * FROM `#{table_name}` WHERE `location_id`=#{id} AND `location_type`=#{Location::UNIT}" } end Both should return []. However... >> Unit.first.units.find([1000000]) [2011-09-27 10:05:11|main|debug] Unit Load (4.0ms) SELECT `units`.* FROM `units`