Rails - Aug 2005 - ActiveRecord::RecordNotFound

Is there a specific reason why AR doesn''t raise a RecordNotFound
exception in any exception other than "find(id)"?  It would seem
to be more consistent with the unified find if all types of
find would raise a RecordNotFound exception.



jim
jim-rhf1kIDhBaeB8E1WFlbJj6xOck334EZe@public.gmane.org

On 8/21/05, Jim Ray
<jim-rhf1kIDhBaeB8E1WFlbJj6xOck334EZe@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> Is there a specific reason why AR doesn''t raise a RecordNotFound
> exception in any exception other than "find(id)"?  It would seem
> to be more consistent with the unified find if all types of
> find would raise a RecordNotFound exception.
> 
> 
> 
> jim
> jim-rhf1kIDhBaeB8E1WFlbJj6xOck334EZe@public.gmane.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 
I believe the reason for this is that when you are retrieving a record
based on a given id, you are doing so with the knowledge that a record
with that id exists. So, if no record is found, it''s an exceptional
circumstance, and RecordNotFound is raised for you to handle.

However, if you are retrieving records based on a set of conditions,
finding no records that match these conditions is a natural possible
outcome. In that case, there''s no reason for  an exception to be
raised.

Gabe

Jim Ray wrote:
> Is there a specific reason why AR doesn''t raise a RecordNotFound
> exception in any exception other than "find(id)"?  It would seem
> to be more consistent with the unified find if all types of
> find would raise a RecordNotFound exception.
Because a query that returns no rows is a normal condition, not an 
exception. In the case of find(id), you''re looking for a specific 
record, which you obviously expect to be there; if it isn''t,
that''s
cause for an exception.

Remember, exceptions aren''t return values. If your program runs 
correctly, you should never see an exception.

- M