Rails - Apr 2005 - What's the best way for the salted login generator to skip encryption/validation?

I followed Dave Goodlad''s and Joseph Hosteny''s posts about
validation.
 I have a similar issue:  I''m using Joseph''s salted login
generator
and would like to update a record without modifying the password. 
However, it appears that the validation and hashing of the password
occurs every time I update, therefore causing either a) a validation
error (e.g. password_confirmation != password) or else b) the password
changes due to an encrypted password being encrypted once again.

Perhaps someone can help me out with this one, as I''ve found myself
running around in loops trying to figure out how to validate in some
cases, but not others.  It appears from the login generator that the
password field goes from [form] through [encryption] to [database].
This is unlike Joseph''s suggestion to Dave that a password_hash field
be used to store the encrypted password (and a virtual "password"
field used for the form validation etc.)  To Joseph: Is there some
reason the login generator does not use this password/password_hash
mechanism?  As the login generator is right now, is there a way to
allow a record to be loaded, then saved without the encryption step in
between for cases like mine?

Thanks for the great job!  I sure appreciate the work you (Joseph)
have done to make rails coding even easier!

-- 
Duane Johnson
(canadaduane)

Duane,

	See Rails ticket 1196 for an detailed explanation of a proposed 
solution for this (which I have implemented temporarily in a 
forthcoming revision of the generator). A number of people responded 
with good suggestions to my original question.

	The updated version uses Dave''s suggestion, but there was still the 
problem to be fixed -
how do you turn off password validation (for the builtin validations) 
when updating a record that was loaded, and therefore the virtual 
fields were never written to (e.g., during sign-on or password update)?

	Certainly you can hand code them in the derived validate_on_update 
handlers - I just didn''t want to rewrite the validations.

Joe

On Apr 27, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Duane Johnson wrote:
> I followed Dave Goodlad''s and Joseph Hosteny''s posts
about validation.
>  I have a similar issue:  I''m using Joseph''s salted login
generator
> and would like to update a record without modifying the password.
> However, it appears that the validation and hashing of the password
> occurs every time I update, therefore causing either a) a validation
> error (e.g. password_confirmation != password) or else b) the password
> changes due to an encrypted password being encrypted once again.
>
> Perhaps someone can help me out with this one, as I''ve found
myself
> running around in loops trying to figure out how to validate in some
> cases, but not others.  It appears from the login generator that the
> password field goes from [form] through [encryption] to [database].
> This is unlike Joseph''s suggestion to Dave that a password_hash
field
> be used to store the encrypted password (and a virtual "password"
> field used for the form validation etc.)  To Joseph: Is there some
> reason the login generator does not use this password/password_hash
> mechanism?  As the login generator is right now, is there a way to
> allow a record to be loaded, then saved without the encryption step in
> between for cases like mine?
>
> Thanks for the great job!  I sure appreciate the work you (Joseph)
> have done to make rails coding even easier!
>
> -- 
> Duane Johnson
> (canadaduane)
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>