I was in the process of working through the shipping example when today
I downloaded the beta2 version of the new rails book. I noticed a
significant change in the following code from:
<%= render_collection_of_partials("order_line", @pending_orders)
%>
to:
<%= render(:partial => "order_line", :collection =>
@pending_orders) %>
incorporating this change resulted in the following error:
ActionView::ActionViewError in Admin#ship
Showing /admin/ship.rhtml where line #4 raised:
No rhtml, rxml, or delegate template found for partialorder_linecollection
Changing back to the original code resolved this issue.
So, I''m thinking this change may have been to ''edge
rails'' code, in
anticipation of the future rails release by August. Is this the case?
If so, I''ll admit to being a bit hesitant to upgrade to
''edge'' at this
moment, as what I have(12.1) works, and I''m still struggling to get a
handle on the language (Ruby noob here) and the Framework. But this seems
to put me in a catch 22, as, of course, I want to read the
''best'' version
of the book possible (assuming Beta2 has cleaned up maybe a couple of
typos and such).
I suppose I''m looking for reassurance that ''edge'' is
quite stable and,
hence, ''safe'' to install, and I''m am also curious, is
edge backwards
compatible with old sytax, such as (apparently?) render_collection_of
partials, for non-book related practice/study?
Thanks for any feedback,
Howard
On Thu, 2005-06-09 at 00:57 -0500, Dave Thomas wrote:> That''s correct. render_collection_of_partials will work in Rails 1.0, > but render(:partial,...) is now preferred, which is why the book > documents it.I suspected as much . . .> (about 350 or so... :)Wow! I wouldn''t have guessed so high> Basecamp runs on the Subversion trunk version. I''ve seen no problemsThat''s definately reassuring> In your situation I don''t think it would hurt to upgrade to the beta > gems version of Rails.True, I don''t have any production code to lose, so now''s a fine time to do it, and your book certainly provides good motivation to do so-- which I probably will do. After, that is, I review the details in more depth on the wiki and get up the courage (and pray to the tech gods that I won''t need that bottle of aspirin to do it). Thanks Dave!
On Jun 9, 2005, at 12:36 AM, Lord Khaos wrote:> I was in the process of working through the shipping example when today > I downloaded the beta2 version of the new rails book. I noticed a > significant change in the following code from: > > <%= render_collection_of_partials("order_line", @pending_orders) %> > > to: > > <%= render(:partial => "order_line", :collection => @pending_orders) %> > incorporating this change resulted in the following error: > ActionView::ActionViewError in Admin#ship > Showing /admin/ship.rhtml where line #4 raised: > > No rhtml, rxml, or delegate template found for > partialorder_linecollection > > Changing back to the original code resolved this issue. > > So, I''m thinking this change may have been to ''edge rails'' code, in > anticipation of the future rails release by August. Is this the case?That''s correct. render_collection_of_partials will work in Rails 1.0, but render(:partial,...) is now preferred, which is why the book documents it.> If so, I''ll admit to being a bit hesitant to upgrade to ''edge'' at this > moment, as what I have(12.1) works, and I''m still struggling to get a > handle on the language (Ruby noob here) and the Framework. But this > seems > to put me in a catch 22, as, of course, I want to read the ''best'' > version > of the book possible (assuming Beta2 has cleaned up maybe a couple of > typos and such).(about 350 or so... :) Basecamp runs on the Subversion trunk version. I''ve seen no problems in the betagem version that I use to build and test the book that aren''t also in the stable gems. The book tries to document Rails 1.0 (which is a fun exercise, as things are still somewhat fluid). There''s a period of transition now, but when the team releases Rails 1.0 the book will be as up-to-date as it can be. In your situation I don''t think it would hurt to upgrade to the beta gems version of Rails. Cheers Dave
On Jun 9, 2005, at 1:21 AM, Lord Khaos wrote:>> (about 350 or so... :) > Wow! I wouldn''t have guessed so highThe errata list is at http://books.pragprog.com/titles/rails/errata As I said, just about all of them have been addressed in the second beta. That number is about parr for a book before copy edit. They normally come back covered in red ink.> True, I don''t have any production code to lose, so now''s a fine time to > do it, and your book certainly provides good motivation to do so-- > which > I probably will do. After, that is, I review the details in more depth > on the wiki and get up the courage (and pray to the tech gods that I > won''t need that bottle of aspirin to do it).It''s honestly not that big a deal, IMO. And the beauty of gems is that you can always uninstall a version if you find a problem. Cheers Dave