In my continued efforts to port my rails 1.x app to Rails 2.1.2, I keep running into what appear to be ActiveRecord bugs. I am using an :include on a :has_many definition: class Request < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :service_types, :order=>''service_types.id ASC'', :include=>:service_response [...] There''s no reason this wouldn''t be supported in Rails 2.1.2, is there? Worked fine in Rails 1.2.6. In Rails 2.1.2, I fetch in a Request objects, and then I try to call some_request.service_types, and I get an exception. Anyone run into this? Any ideas? That :include is really useful to me for efficiency. You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! You might have expected an instance of Array. The error occurred while evaluating nil.each /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:74:in `set_association_single_records'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:67:in `each'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:67:in `set_association_single_records'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:242:in `preload_belongs_to_association'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:219:in `each'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:219:in `preload_belongs_to_association'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:40:in `send'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:40:in `preload_one_association'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:38:in `each'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:38:in `preload_one_association'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:17:in `preload_associations'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:16:in `preload_associations'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:16:in `each'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/association_preload.rb:16:in `preload_associations'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/base.rb:1347:in `find_every'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/base.rb:540:in `find'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/associations/association_collection.rb:47:in `find'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/associations/association_collection.rb:308:in `find_target'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/associations/association_collection.rb:262:in `load_target'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/associations/association_proxy.rb:169:in `method_missing'' /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/associations/association_collection.rb:279:in `method_missing'' app/controllers/test_controller.rb:9:in `index'' -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 6 Nov 2008, at 16:39, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> > In my continued efforts to port my rails 1.x app to Rails 2.1.2, I > keep > running into what appear to be ActiveRecord bugs. > > I am using an :include on a :has_many definition: > > class Request < ActiveRecord::Base > has_many :service_types, :order=>''service_types.id ASC'', > :include=>:service_response > [...] >> There''s no reason this wouldn''t be supported in Rails 2.1.2, is there? >It should work. :include was rewritten for rails 2.1 though. service_type has a belongs_to :service_response ? Fred> Worked fine in Rails 1.2.6. In Rails 2.1.2, I fetch in a Request > objects, and then I try to call some_request.service_types, and I > get an > exception. > > Anyone run into this? Any ideas? That :include is really useful to me > for efficiency. > > You have a nil object when you didn''t expect it! > You might have expected an instance of Array. > The error occurred while evaluating nil.each > > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:74:in > `set_association_single_records'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:67:in > `each'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:67:in > `set_association_single_records'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:242:in > `preload_belongs_to_association'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:219:in > `each'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:219:in > `preload_belongs_to_association'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:40:in > `send'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:40:in > `preload_one_association'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:38:in > `each'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:38:in > `preload_one_association'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:17:in > `preload_associations'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:16:in > `preload_associations'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:16:in > `each'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > association_preload.rb:16:in > `preload_associations'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > base.rb:1347:in > `find_every'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > base.rb:540:in > `find'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > associations/association_collection.rb:47:in > `find'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > associations/association_collection.rb:308:in > `find_target'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > associations/association_collection.rb:262:in > `load_target'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > associations/association_proxy.rb:169:in > `method_missing'' > /usr/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.1.2/lib/active_record/ > associations/association_collection.rb:279:in > `method_missing'' > app/controllers/test_controller.rb:9:in `index'' > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Frederick Cheung wrote:> On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:39, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > >> [...] >> > >> There''s no reason this wouldn''t be supported in Rails 2.1.2, is there? >> > > It should work. :include was rewritten for rails 2.1 though. > service_type has a belongs_to :service_response ? > > FredIt sure does. This is annoying me highly. I''ve pared down my code to a simple reproducible test case. And it''s still exhibiting. i can''t figure out what I''m doing to trigger the bug, if everyone else is using :has_many, :include without problems. Very frustrating. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hmm, is it possible that the fact that the model is named "Request" is somehow triggering the bug? That''s the only thing I can figure out. Jonathan Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> Frederick Cheung wrote: >> On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:39, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> >>> [...] >>> >> >>> There''s no reason this wouldn''t be supported in Rails 2.1.2, is there? >>> >> >> It should work. :include was rewritten for rails 2.1 though. >> service_type has a belongs_to :service_response ? >> >> Fred > > It sure does. > > This is annoying me highly. I''ve pared down my code to a simple > reproducible test case. And it''s still exhibiting. i can''t figure out > what I''m doing to trigger the bug, if everyone else is using :has_many, > :include without problems. Very frustrating.-- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Jonathan is probably right. ''Request'' is a reserved word in Rails - see http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/ReservedWords Try changing the model name to ServiceRequest or similar. On Nov 7, 6:43 am, Jonathan Rochkind <rails-mailing-l...@andreas- s.net> wrote:> Hmm, is it possible that the fact that the model is named "Request" is > somehow triggering the bug? That''s the only thing I can figure out. > > Jonathan > > > > Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > > Frederick Cheung wrote: > >> On 6 Nov 2008, at 16:39, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > > >>> [...] > > >>> There''s no reason this wouldn''t be supported in Rails 2.1.2, is there? > > >> It should work. :include was rewritten for rails 2.1 though. > >> service_type has a belongs_to :service_response ? > > >> Fred > > > It sure does. > > > This is annoying me highly. I''ve pared down my code to a simple > > reproducible test case. And it''s still exhibiting. i can''t figure out > > what I''m doing to trigger the bug, if everyone else is using :has_many, > > :include without problems. Very frustrating. > > -- > Posted viahttp://www.ruby-forum.com/.--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Thanks a lot Chris. Sadly, I''ve got my work cut out for me, as changing the name of the model in this fairly mature application is going to be some work. But at least it all makes some sense now. Is it possible to change the model name without changing the name of the _associations_ that point to it in other models? Or, I guess, to alias the association name ''request'' to an ''actual'' association named service_request or whatever. To give me less code that has to be changed? Any advice as to the lowest impact way to change a model name in a mature application with lots of code that refers to that model, and to associations in other models that point to that model? Odd that I got away with it in Rails 1.x, but oh well, I guess it was really incorrect all along. Jonathan Chris Bartlett wrote:> Jonathan is probably right. ''Request'' is a reserved word in Rails - > see http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/ReservedWords > > Try changing the model name to ServiceRequest or similar. > > On Nov 7, 6:43�am, Jonathan Rochkind <rails-mailing-l...@andreas--- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest doesn''t seem to have done it. I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest (nee Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key. It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an assocation, even when not the name of the model, is a no-no too? Man, that lengthy lengthy list of reserved words, which wasn''t really official documentation anyway and seems to be have been discovered only by experimentation... is leading to one of those times I''m less happy with ruby/rails. I''ve got a lot of refactoring to do. Changing the many association names to this model every time they are used is not going to be fun. Jonathan Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> Thanks a lot Chris. Sadly, I''ve got my work cut out for me, as changing > the name of the model in this fairly mature application is going to be > some work. But at least it all makes some sense now. > > Is it possible to change the model name without changing the name of the > _associations_ that point to it in other models? Or, I guess, to alias > the association name ''request'' to an ''actual'' association named > service_request or whatever. To give me less code that has to be > changed? Any advice as to the lowest impact way to change a model name > in a mature application with lots of code that refers to that model, and > to associations in other models that point to that model? > > Odd that I got away with it in Rails 1.x, but oh well, I guess it was > really incorrect all along. > > Jonathan > > Chris Bartlett wrote: >> Jonathan is probably right. ''Request'' is a reserved word in Rails - >> see http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/ReservedWords >> >> Try changing the model name to ServiceRequest or similar. >> >> On Nov 7, 6:43�am, Jonathan Rochkind <rails-mailing-l...@andreas--- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
On 10 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> > Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest doesn''t > seem to have done it. > > I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest (nee > Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key. > > It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an assocation, even when > not the name of the model, is a no-no too?I''m not convinced that has anything to do with this at all. If you could post your teeny tiny example I might be able to work out what is going in (given that I wrote the code behind include in 2.1.2) Fred> > > Man, that lengthy lengthy list of reserved words, which wasn''t really > official documentation anyway and seems to be have been discovered > only > by experimentation... is leading to one of those times I''m less happy > with ruby/rails. > > I''ve got a lot of refactoring to do. Changing the many association > names > to this model every time they are used is not going to be fun. > > Jonathan > > Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> Thanks a lot Chris. Sadly, I''ve got my work cut out for me, as >> changing >> the name of the model in this fairly mature application is going to >> be >> some work. But at least it all makes some sense now. >> >> Is it possible to change the model name without changing the name >> of the >> _associations_ that point to it in other models? Or, I guess, to >> alias >> the association name ''request'' to an ''actual'' association named >> service_request or whatever. To give me less code that has to be >> changed? Any advice as to the lowest impact way to change a model >> name >> in a mature application with lots of code that refers to that >> model, and >> to associations in other models that point to that model? >> >> Odd that I got away with it in Rails 1.x, but oh well, I guess it was >> really incorrect all along. >> >> Jonathan >> >> Chris Bartlett wrote: >>> Jonathan is probably right. ''Request'' is a reserved word in Rails - >>> see http://wiki.rubyonrails.org/rails/pages/ReservedWords >>> >>> Try changing the model name to ServiceRequest or similar. >>> >>> On Nov 7, 6:43�am, Jonathan Rochkind <rails-mailing-l...@andreas- > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Yeah, you''re right, sorry, thanks so much for your help. Probably for the best that i changed the model name from Request anyway, might as well commit that to my svn since it''s advertised as a Rails reserved word. I just posted this to the forum with a different subject, since it ended up having nothing to do with this, but. But I was forced to really get down and dirty with my testing, and it turns out it''s because I had over-ridden [] and []= on one of the models involved. I got away with that in Rails 1 (perhaps AR didn''t used to use these methods?), but not in Rails 2. Okay, more refactoring, this one''s even more of a pain then the last one. Oh well, I guess I was being too clever before. Jonathan Frederick Cheung wrote:> On 10 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: > >> >> Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest doesn''t >> seem to have done it. >> >> I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest (nee >> Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key. >> >> It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an assocation, even when >> not the name of the model, is a no-no too? > > I''m not convinced that has anything to do with this at all. If you > could post your teeny tiny example I might be able to work out what is > going in (given that I wrote the code behind include in 2.1.2) > > Fred-- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 10 Nov 2008, at 22:32, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> > Yeah, you''re right, sorry, thanks so much for your help. Probably for > the best that i changed the model name from Request anyway, might as > well commit that to my svn since it''s advertised as a Rails reserved > word. > > I just posted this to the forum with a different subject, since it > ended > up having nothing to do with this, but. But I was forced to really get > down and dirty with my testing, and it turns out it''s because I had > over-ridden [] and []= on one of the models involved. I got away with > that in Rails 1 (perhaps AR didn''t used to use these methods?), but > not > in Rails 2. Okay, more refactoring, this one''s even more of a pain > then > the last one. Oh well, I guess I was being too clever before. >Rails has always provided [] and []= for getting/setting attributes. :include was largely rewritten in 2.1 and does indeed use [] to read attributess, the corresponding bits of 2.0 or 1.2 obviously didn''t Fred> Jonathan > > Frederick Cheung wrote: >> On 10 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Jonathan Rochkind wrote: >> >>> >>> Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest doesn''t >>> seem to have done it. >>> >>> I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest (nee >>> Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key. >>> >>> It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an assocation, even >>> when >>> not the name of the model, is a no-no too? >> >> I''m not convinced that has anything to do with this at all. If you >> could post your teeny tiny example I might be able to work out what >> is >> going in (given that I wrote the code behind include in 2.1.2) >> >> Fred > > -- > Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. > > >--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
The odd thing is that I get away with over-riding [] and []= until I try
defining an association with a pre-fetch :include that involves the
model with the over-ridden [] and []=. And googling around, I can see
several people suggesting over-ridding [] and []= on an AR model to
accomplish various clever things. So maybe it is a bug? Regardless, I
think I''ll try to refactor to do not do that to avoid the risk of
getting in the way of AR. It seems to be rather easier than one would
like to get in the way of AR.
In particular, the too-clever thing I was doing was having an AR that
could take arbitrary keys and either store them in an attribute, if it
exists, or in a serialized hash, if otherwise. An excerpt of the
relevant stuff:
def MyThing < ActiveRecord::Base
serializes :my_data
def [](key)
if ( has_attribute?(key) )
self.send(key)
else
my_data[key]
end
end
def []=(key, value)
if ( has_attribute?(key) )
self.send(key.to_s+''='', value)
else
my_data[key] = value
end
end
All well and good--until I try to define an association with :include =>
MyThing .
Jonathan Rochkind wrote:> Yeah, you''re right, sorry, thanks so much for your help. Probably
for
> the best that i changed the model name from Request anyway, might as
> well commit that to my svn since it''s advertised as a Rails
reserved
> word.
>
> I just posted this to the forum with a different subject, since it ended
> up having nothing to do with this, but. But I was forced to really get
> down and dirty with my testing, and it turns out it''s because I
had
> over-ridden [] and []= on one of the models involved. I got away with
> that in Rails 1 (perhaps AR didn''t used to use these methods?),
but not
> in Rails 2. Okay, more refactoring, this one''s even more of a
pain then
> the last one. Oh well, I guess I was being too clever before.
>
> Jonathan
>
> Frederick Cheung wrote:
>> On 10 Nov 2008, at 21:04, Jonathan Rochkind wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hmm, just changing the model name from Request to AppRequest
doesn''t
>>> seem to have done it.
>>>
>>> I tried to leave the (many) associations pointing to AppRequest
(nee
>>> Request) the same, but specify a :class_name and :foreign_key.
>>>
>>> It sounds like maybe "request" as the name of an
assocation, even when
>>> not the name of the model, is a no-no too?
>>
>> I''m not convinced that has anything to do with this at all. If
you
>> could post your teeny tiny example I might be able to work out what is
>> going in (given that I wrote the code behind include in 2.1.2)
>>
>> Fred
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Seemingly Similar Threads
- ActiveRecord Unexplainable SystemStackError - Only in WEBrick
- Rails 3 Active Record query returns "undefined method `loaded?' for #<Array:0x126a4c>"
- Rails 2.1.2, complex find involving complex include, bug?
- sybase in rails2?
- RubyOnRails with MS SQL - Connectivity Error