I have the following code:
class User < ActiveRecord::Base
has_many :requests do
def find_active(options = {})
with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active =
?",
true] } do
find(:all, options)
end
end
end
end
Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL:
SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND
( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY
requests.name
Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10).
Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that makes it
go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect
since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the
covers.
I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 19 Oct 2007, at 00:21, gobigdave wrote:> > I have the following code: > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :requests do > def find_active(options = {}) > with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > true] } do > find(:all, options) > end > end > end > end > > Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > requests.name >Would the find_active method not be better defined on the Request class ? Fred> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that makes it > go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > covers. > > I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I don''t think so because I''m looking for active requests of the user. Sure, I could have a Request.find_active(user) method, but I decided to make use of my has_many association. While it does bring a little Request knowledge into User, I think user.requests.find_active is cleaner and makes more sense than Request.find_active(user). To me, that''s one of the beauties of has_many, has_one, etc. Besides, that is not the original question. :) On Oct 19, 4:14 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 19 Oct 2007, at 00:21, gobigdave wrote: > > > > > > > I have the following code: > > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many :requests do > > def find_active(options = {}) > > with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > > true] } do > > find(:all, options) > > end > > end > > end > > end > > > Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > > SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > > ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > > requests.name > > Would the find_active method not be better defined on the Request > class ? > > Fred > > > Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > > Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that makes it > > go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > > since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > > covers. > > > I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 19 Oct 2007, at 12:44, gobigdave wrote:> > I don''t think so because I''m looking for active requests of the user. > Sure, I could have a Request.find_active(user) method, but I decided > to make use of my has_many association. While it does bring a little > Request knowledge into User, I think user.requests.find_active is > cleaner and makes more sense than Request.find_active(user). To me, > that''s one of the beauties of has_many, has_one, etc. >you can make use of the has_many, since this sort of stuff works: class Request < ActiveRecord::Base def self.find_active find :all, :condition => ["active = ?", true] end end And then user.requests.find_active finds active requests for that user. Fred> Besides, that is not the original question. :) > > On Oct 19, 4:14 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: >> On 19 Oct 2007, at 00:21, gobigdave wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I have the following code: >> >>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base >>> has_many :requests do >>> def find_active(options = {}) >>> with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", >>> true] } do >>> find(:all, options) >>> end >>> end >>> end >>> end >> >>> Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: >>> SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND >>> ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY >>> requests.name >> >> Would the find_active method not be better defined on the Request >> class ? >> >> Fred >> >>> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). >> >>> Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that >>> makes it >>> go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect >>> since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the >>> covers. >> >>> I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Umm...looks like a bug to my eyes..does it happen in latest edge rails as well ? On 10/19/07, gobigdave <gobigdave-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > I have the following code: > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :requests do > def find_active(options = {}) > with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > true] } do > find(:all, options) > end > end > end > end > > Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > requests.name > > Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that makes it > go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > covers. > > I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > > > >-- Cheers! - Pratik http://m.onkey.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Haven''t tried edge rails yet, but I found another one that scares me. I have a class that uses an after_create callback to build up several associations. I''m finding that a simple Request.find call is inheriting scope depending on how I create the object. It''s hard to explain without see all the code, but here goes. User has_many Requests. Requests will build up associations amongst themselves by after_create calling search(). The search method in Request is basically like: def search Request.find(...) end If I create a Request like this: user.requests.create!() Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) added to their where clause. That should not happen. If I call Request.search() directly or do user.requests << Request.new(), then the (user_id = n) is not added to the where clause. Sure feels like a nasty, subtle bug to me. Is this the best place to let it be known? I''m going back to 1.2.4. On Oct 19, 9:08 am, Pratik <pratikn...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> Umm...looks like a bug to my eyes..does it happen in latest edge rails as well ? > > On 10/19/07, gobigdave <gobigd...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > > > > > I have the following code: > > > class User < ActiveRecord::Base > > has_many :requests do > > def find_active(options = {}) > > with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > > true] } do > > find(:all, options) > > end > > end > > end > > end > > > Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > > SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > > ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > > requests.name > > > Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > > Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that makes it > > go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > > since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > > covers. > > > I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > -- > Cheers! > - Pratikhttp://m.onkey.org--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> If I create a Request like this: > > user.requests.create!() > > Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) > added to their where clause. That should not happen. >This scoping is intentional although the consequences can be subtle. It''s what makes user.requests.find_active work when you''ve only defined Request.find_active> If I call Request.search() directly or do user.requests << > Request.new(), then the (user_id = n) is not added to the where > clause. > > Sure feels like a nasty, subtle bug to me. > > Is this the best place to let it be known?dev.rubyonrails.org, the rails-core mailing lists or the rails- contrib irc channgels are more suitable for discussing the development of rails itself. Fred> I''m going back to 1.2.4. > > > > On Oct 19, 9:08 am, Pratik <pratikn...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> Umm...looks like a bug to my eyes..does it happen in latest edge >> rails as well ? >> >> On 10/19/07, gobigdave <gobigd...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> I have the following code: >> >>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base >>> has_many :requests do >>> def find_active(options = {}) >>> with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", >>> true] } do >>> find(:all, options) >>> end >>> end >>> end >>> end >> >>> Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: >>> SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND >>> ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY >>> requests.name >> >>> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). >> >>> Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that >>> makes it >>> go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect >>> since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the >>> covers. >> >>> I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. >> >> -- >> Cheers! >> - Pratikhttp://m.onkey.org > > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
> > Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) > > added to their where clause. That should not happen. > > This scoping is intentional although the consequences can be subtle. > It''s what makes user.requests.find_active work when you''ve only > defined Request.find_activeThis is intentional? That surprises me because of all the subtle side- effects. I mean how would I know what to do in Request.after_create because the behavior is different based on how I was created (user.requests.create() vs. user.requests << Request.new())? I''m of the opinion that code (like a state machine) should not be dependent on where you''re called from. It should only be dependent on the arguments passed. I guess I need to go through all my code and make sure I don''t have any other issues like this. There still is the issue of doubling up of (user_id = 10) when using with_scope. On Oct 19, 10:50 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > If I create a Request like this: > > > user.requests.create!() > > > Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) > > added to their where clause. That should not happen. > > This scoping is intentional although the consequences can be subtle. > It''s what makes user.requests.find_active work when you''ve only > defined Request.find_active > > > If I call Request.search() directly or do user.requests << > > Request.new(), then the (user_id = n) is not added to the where > > clause. > > > Sure feels like a nasty, subtle bug to me. > > > Is this the best place to let it be known? > > dev.rubyonrails.org, the rails-core mailing lists or the rails- > contrib irc channgels are more suitable for discussing the > development of rails itself. > > Fred > > > I''m going back to 1.2.4. > > > On Oct 19, 9:08 am, Pratik <pratikn...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> Umm...looks like a bug to my eyes..does it happen in latest edge > >> rails as well ? > > >> On 10/19/07, gobigdave <gobigd...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >>> I have the following code: > > >>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base > >>> has_many :requests do > >>> def find_active(options = {}) > >>> with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > >>> true] } do > >>> find(:all, options) > >>> end > >>> end > >>> end > >>> end > > >>> Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > >>> SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > >>> ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > >>> requests.name > > >>> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > >>> Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that > >>> makes it > >>> go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > >>> since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > >>> covers. > > >>> I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > >> -- > >> Cheers! > >> - Pratikhttp://m.onkey.org--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
I played with this some more, and I get the power of this for finders, but create can cause some troubles. Knowing this, I moved all my association extensions from User to Request, and that got rid of the double (user_id = 10) and (user_id = 10). Although, I still think the previous is a minor issue with with_scope. I fixed my Request.find issue by adding with_exclusive_scope anywhere where I really did want to search the entire requests table and not inherit any scope. On Oct 19, 11:36 am, gobigdave <gobigd...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> > > Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) > > > added to their where clause. That should not happen. > > > This scoping is intentional although the consequences can be subtle. > > It''s what makes user.requests.find_active work when you''ve only > > defined Request.find_active > > This is intentional? That surprises me because of all the subtle side- > effects. I mean how would I know what to do in Request.after_create > because the behavior is different based on how I was created > (user.requests.create() vs. user.requests << Request.new())? I''m of > the opinion that code (like a state machine) should not be dependent > on where you''re called from. It should only be dependent on the > arguments passed. I guess I need to go through all my code and make > sure I don''t have any other issues like this. > > There still is the issue of doubling up of (user_id = 10) when using > with_scope. > > On Oct 19, 10:50 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > wrote: > > > > If I create a Request like this: > > > > user.requests.create!() > > > > Then calls in the Request.find() calls in Request get a (user_id = n) > > > added to their where clause. That should not happen. > > > This scoping is intentional although the consequences can be subtle. > > It''s what makes user.requests.find_active work when you''ve only > > defined Request.find_active > > > > If I call Request.search() directly or do user.requests << > > > Request.new(), then the (user_id = n) is not added to the where > > > clause. > > > > Sure feels like a nasty, subtle bug to me. > > > > Is this the best place to let it be known? > > > dev.rubyonrails.org, the rails-core mailing lists or the rails- > > contrib irc channgels are more suitable for discussing the > > development of rails itself. > > > Fred > > > > I''m going back to 1.2.4. > > > > On Oct 19, 9:08 am, Pratik <pratikn...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > >> Umm...looks like a bug to my eyes..does it happen in latest edge > > >> rails as well ? > > > >> On 10/19/07, gobigdave <gobigd...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote: > > > >>> I have the following code: > > > >>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base > > >>> has_many :requests do > > >>> def find_active(options = {}) > > >>> with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > > >>> true] } do > > >>> find(:all, options) > > >>> end > > >>> end > > >>> end > > >>> end > > > >>> Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > > >>> SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > > >>> ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > > >>> requests.name > > > >>> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > > >>> Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that > > >>> makes it > > >>> go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > > >>> since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > > >>> covers. > > > >>> I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6. > > > >> -- > > >> Cheers! > > >> - Pratikhttp://m.onkey.org--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yes, it does work, but in your example user.requests.find_active will not cache. That was the main reason for me putting it in User. I ended up with the best of both worlds using the scope_out plugin. Now I have: class Request belongs_to :user scope_out :active, :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", true] end class User has_many :requests, :extend => Request::AssociationMethods end Now, find_active, with_active, and calculate_active are available from Request and user.requests, I get the caching I want, and it''s a whole lot less code. On Oct 19, 8:10 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:> On 19 Oct 2007, at 12:44, gobigdave wrote: > > > > > I don''t think so because I''m looking for active requests of the user. > > Sure, I could have a Request.find_active(user) method, but I decided > > to make use of my has_many association. While it does bring a little > > Request knowledge into User, I think user.requests.find_active is > > cleaner and makes more sense than Request.find_active(user). To me, > > that''s one of the beauties of has_many, has_one, etc. > > you can make use of the has_many, since this sort of stuff works: > > class Request < ActiveRecord::Base > def self.find_active > find :all, :condition => ["active = ?", true] > end > end > > And then user.requests.find_active finds active requests for that user. > > Fred> Besides, that is not the original question. :) > > > On Oct 19, 4:14 am, Frederick Cheung <frederick.che...-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> > > wrote: > >> On 19 Oct 2007, at 00:21, gobigdave wrote: > > >>> I have the following code: > > >>> class User < ActiveRecord::Base > >>> has_many :requests do > >>> def find_active(options = {}) > >>> with_scope :find => { :conditions => ["requests.active = ?", > >>> true] } do > >>> find(:all, options) > >>> end > >>> end > >>> end > >>> end > > >>> Executing user.requests.find_active results in the following SQL: > >>> SELECT * FROM requests WHERE (( requests.user_id = 10 ) AND > >>> ( requests.active = 1 )) AND (requests.user_id = 10) ORDER BY > >>> requests.name > > >> Would the find_active method not be better defined on the Request > >> class ? > > >> Fred > > >>> Note the extra (requests.user_id = 10). > > >>> Is this as expected? I can use with_exclusive_scope and that > >>> makes it > >>> go away, but the doc makes me wonder if I may not get what I expect > >>> since has_many is probably doing some kind of with_scope under the > >>> covers. > > >>> I''m using Rails 1.2.5 and Ruby 1.8.6.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 rubyonrails-talk-unsubscribe-/JYPxA39Uh5TLH3MbocFFw@public.gmane.org For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---